{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "12",
    "document_number": "18",
    "date": "07/10/20",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 18 Filed 07/10/20 Page 12 of 26\n\nStephens, Ms. Maxwell's inability to meet with her attorneys while this policy is in effect constitutes a \"compelling reason\" requiring her release. Stephens, 2020 WL 1295155 at *3.6\n\nEven speaking by phone with Ms. Maxwell presents daunting challenges due to COVID-19-related protocols requiring at least 72 hours' notice to schedule a call, unless it is urgent, in which case counsel can email a request to the MDC. As counsel learned this past week, however, even an urgent call request does not mean the call will take place in the time required.\n\nAt approximately 5:30 p.m. on July 6, 2020, the Court ordered us to confer with Ms. Maxwell about waiving her physical presence at the arraignment, initial appearance, and bail hearing, and ordered counsel for both sides to jointly report back by 9:00 p.m. that night with a proposed date and time for these proceedings. We promptly emailed the MDC to request an urgent call, making specific reference to the Court's Order, but were not connected with Ms. Maxwell until 9:00 p.m. There will no doubt be other orders of the Court with no guarantees we will be able to reach our client in time if she is detained.7 In addition, during this past week, Ms. Maxwell has not been able to physically review documents and has had limited access to writing materials.\n\nThe prohibition on in-person visits means we must read to her any documents requiring her review, and she has virtually no ability to take notes. The age of the allegations in this case compound these problems. Under the current circumstances, Ms. Maxwell cannot review\n\n6 Since the Court issued its opinion in Stephens, numerous other courts in this District have ordered defendants released on bail, over the government's objection, due to the pandemic and its impact on the defendant's ability to prepare for trial. See, e.g., United States v. Carrillo-Villa, 20-MJ-3073 (SLC) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2020) (releasing undocumented defendant in drug conspiracy case because of inability to meaningfully communicate with lawyer and risk of COVID-19); United States v. Hudson, 19-CR-496 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2020) (releasing defendant in drug conspiracy, loansharking, and extortion case, whose two prior, pre-COVID-19 bail applications were denied, because of inability to prepare for upcoming trial and risk of COVID-19); United States v. Chandler, 19-CR-867 (PAC), 2020 WL 1528120, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2020) (releasing defendant on felon in possession case, with prior manslaughter conviction, due to inability to prepare for trial due to COVID-19 restrictions).\n\n7 The government has recently worked with the BOP to set up a standing call between counsel and Ms. Maxwell each morning until the initial appearance to facilitate attorney-client communications. While we greatly appreciate these efforts, they are a short-term patch to a persistent problem that shows no signs of abating. Nor would it be appropriate, on an ongoing basis, for the prosecutors to be involved in and dictate the date and time of our communications with our client in connection with the preparation of our defense.\n\n8\n\nDOJ-OGR-00001592",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 18 Filed 07/10/20 Page 12 of 26",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Stephens, Ms. Maxwell's inability to meet with her attorneys while this policy is in effect constitutes a \"compelling reason\" requiring her release. Stephens, 2020 WL 1295155 at *3.6",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Even speaking by phone with Ms. Maxwell presents daunting challenges due to COVID-19-related protocols requiring at least 72 hours' notice to schedule a call, unless it is urgent, in which case counsel can email a request to the MDC. As counsel learned this past week, however, even an urgent call request does not mean the call will take place in the time required.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "At approximately 5:30 p.m. on July 6, 2020, the Court ordered us to confer with Ms. Maxwell about waiving her physical presence at the arraignment, initial appearance, and bail hearing, and ordered counsel for both sides to jointly report back by 9:00 p.m. that night with a proposed date and time for these proceedings. We promptly emailed the MDC to request an urgent call, making specific reference to the Court's Order, but were not connected with Ms. Maxwell until 9:00 p.m. There will no doubt be other orders of the Court with no guarantees we will be able to reach our client in time if she is detained.7 In addition, during this past week, Ms. Maxwell has not been able to physically review documents and has had limited access to writing materials.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The prohibition on in-person visits means we must read to her any documents requiring her review, and she has virtually no ability to take notes. The age of the allegations in this case compound these problems. Under the current circumstances, Ms. Maxwell cannot review",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "6 Since the Court issued its opinion in Stephens, numerous other courts in this District have ordered defendants released on bail, over the government's objection, due to the pandemic and its impact on the defendant's ability to prepare for trial. See, e.g., United States v. Carrillo-Villa, 20-MJ-3073 (SLC) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2020) (releasing undocumented defendant in drug conspiracy case because of inability to meaningfully communicate with lawyer and risk of COVID-19); United States v. Hudson, 19-CR-496 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2020) (releasing defendant in drug conspiracy, loansharking, and extortion case, whose two prior, pre-COVID-19 bail applications were denied, because of inability to prepare for upcoming trial and risk of COVID-19); United States v. Chandler, 19-CR-867 (PAC), 2020 WL 1528120, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2020) (releasing defendant on felon in possession case, with prior manslaughter conviction, due to inability to prepare for trial due to COVID-19 restrictions).",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "7 The government has recently worked with the BOP to set up a standing call between counsel and Ms. Maxwell each morning until the initial appearance to facilitate attorney-client communications. While we greatly appreciate these efforts, they are a short-term patch to a persistent problem that shows no signs of abating. Nor would it be appropriate, on an ongoing basis, for the prosecutors to be involved in and dictate the date and time of our communications with our client in connection with the preparation of our defense.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "8",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00001592",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "MDC",
      "BOP",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "07/10/20",
      "July 6, 2020",
      "Apr. 6, 2020",
      "Mar. 19, 2020",
      "Mar. 31, 2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 18",
      "20-MJ-3073",
      "19-CR-496",
      "19-CR-867"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell, discussing the challenges posed by COVID-19 protocols on her ability to communicate with her attorneys and prepare for trial."
}