DOJ-OGR-00000140.pdf
epstein-pdf-nov2025 PDF 32.3 KB • Feb 4, 2026
--- Page 1 ---
**Document Extraction**
The document appears to be a page from a legal case, likely a court transcript or opinion. Here is the extracted text:
**Header**
77a
**Main Text**
At a minimum, Maxwell's motion is premature. Courts typically evaluate whether a question was fundamentally ambiguous only after the development of a full factual record at trial. See, e.g., United States v. Markiewicz, 978 F.2d 786, 808 (2d Cir. 1992). The evidence at trial may shed further light on whether the questions posed were objectively ambiguous in context or whether Maxwell subjectively understood them. In any event, the Court has closely considered each of the categories of questions that Maxwell argues are ambiguous. None of the alleged ambiguities Maxwell identifies rise to the level supporting dismissal of the charges. The context of the questions and answers, in conjunction with the Government's evidence, could lead a reasonable juror to conclude that the statements were perjurious. Truth and falsity are questions for the jury in all but the most extreme cases. The Court declines to usurp the jury's role on the limited pretrial record.
B. A reasonable juror could conclude that Maxwell's statements were material
Maxwell also argues that the perjury counts should be dismissed because none of the allegedly false statements were material to the defamation action. In a civil deposition, a statement is material if it has a natural tendency to influence the court or if a truthful answer might reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 509 (1995); United States v. Kross, 14 F.3d 751, 753-54 (2d Cir. 1994). Like knowing falsity, materiality is an element of the offense and thus "ordinarily must be 'decided by the jury, not the court.'" Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 465 (1997). Only the most extraordinary circumstances justify departure from this general rule. United States v. Forde, 740 F. Supp.
**Footer**
DOJ-OGR-00000140
Note: The text is presented in its original format, with no changes or corrections made. Any errors or inconsistencies are preserved as they appear in the original document.
Entities
0 total entities mentioned
No entities found in this document
Document Metadata
- Document ID
- 034e4adb-318d-44ad-afb4-45ff4b2510e3
- Storage Key
- epstein-pdf-nov2025/DOJ-OGR-00000140.pdf
- Created
- Feb 4, 2026