{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "108",
    "document_number": "20-2",
    "date": "04/01/2021",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 21-770, Document 20-2, 04/01/2021, 3068530, Page108 of 200\n\n1 377(1), and we understand that the court is following the\n2 statute. The statute gives alleged victims the right to speak\n3 through counsel, through the government, or directly, and be\n4 heard, and we understand that, your Honor.\n5\n6 The question today before the court, we submit, is\n7 whether or not our client could be released or should be\n8 released on a condition or combination of conditions to assure\n9 her appearance. And as to that question, the presentations\n10 today do not speak, they do not speak to risk of flight, and\n11 the courts have -- in this circuit have thought about and\n12 researched what weight should be given to that. There is an\n13 opinion by Judge Orenstein in the Eastern District, United\n14 States v. Turner, from April 2005, not cited by the government,\n15 in which the court, after carefully surveying the legislative\n16 history and background of the CVRA and its interplay with the\n17 bail reform statute, concluded, \"In considering how to ensure\n18 that the rights are afforded, I am cognizant that the new law\n19 gives crime victims a voice but not a veto. Of particular\n20 relevance to this case, a court's obligation to protect the\n21 victim's rights and to carefully consider any objections that\n22 victim may have never requires it to deny a defendant release\n23 on conditions that will adequately secure the defendant's\n24 appearance,\" going on to cite the Senate legislative history\n25 that's being cited with approval of United States v. Rubin,\n26 also an Eastern District case.\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nDOJ-OGR-00001049",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 21-770, Document 20-2, 04/01/2021, 3068530, Page108 of 200",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 377(1), and we understand that the court is following the statute. The statute gives alleged victims the right to speak through counsel, through the government, or directly, and be heard, and we understand that, your Honor.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The question today before the court, we submit, is whether or not our client could be released or should be released on a condition or combination of conditions to assure her appearance. And as to that question, the presentations today do not speak, they do not speak to risk of flight, and the courts have -- in this circuit have thought about and researched what weight should be given to that. There is an opinion by Judge Orenstein in the Eastern District, United States v. Turner, from April 2005, not cited by the government, in which the court, after carefully surveying the legislative history and background of the CVRA and its interplay with the bail reform statute, concluded, \"In considering how to ensure that the rights are afforded, I am cognizant that the new law gives crime victims a voice but not a veto. Of particular relevance to this case, a court's obligation to protect the victim's rights and to carefully consider any objections that victim may have never requires it to deny a defendant release on conditions that will adequately secure the defendant's appearance,\" going on to cite the Senate legislative history that's being cited with approval of United States v. Rubin, also an Eastern District case.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00001049",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Judge Orenstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.",
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Eastern District"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/01/2021",
      "April 2005"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 21-770",
      "Document 20-2",
      "3068530",
      "DOJ-OGR-00001049"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document. It is typed and contains legal terminology and references to specific court cases and statutes."
}