{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "document_number": "221",
    "date": "04/20/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "of the pre-trial motions strengthen, rather than weaken, the Court's prior conclusions regarding flight risk. Maxwell is entitled to appeal that detention determination, and she is exercising that right. But it does not follow that the new charges call for the Court to revisit its three prior bail determinations. Further, the Court will not hold an evidentiary hearing in which the strength of the Government's case is tested. “It is well established in this circuit that proffers are permissible both in the bail determination and bail revocation contexts.” United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 131 (2d Cir. 2000). Before making its prior bail determinations, the Court scrutinized, among the other relevant factors, the Government's proffer and concluded that the proffered case was strong. The ultimate merits of the Government's case will be tested at trial in front of a jury. In the meantime, it is the Court's obligation to ensure that the case proceed to that trial as expeditiously as possible, taking into account the interests of justice and all relevant circumstances. The Court is obligated to consider what is in the best interest of the public and the defendant in considering whether delay is appropriate. See 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(A). Moreover, the Crime Victims' Rights Act provides a right “to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(7). This leads directly to the question of the specific start date of trial and Maxwell's request for an adjournment. As a preliminary matter, the Court provides the following important information. Although last summer the Court set trial to commence on July 12, 2021, currently the precise start date of any trial in the Southern District of New York is not within the control of the presiding judge. SDNY is still operating under special protocols for jury selection during the COVID-19 pandemic. Because of a limited number of reconfigured courtrooms and spaces large enough to hold jury selection and trial safely, the protocols centralize the scheduling of access to juries and reconfigured courtrooms pursuant to an established protocol for trial priority. The DOJ-OGR-00003867",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "of the pre-trial motions strengthen, rather than weaken, the Court's prior conclusions regarding flight risk. Maxwell is entitled to appeal that detention determination, and she is exercising that right. But it does not follow that the new charges call for the Court to revisit its three prior bail determinations. Further, the Court will not hold an evidentiary hearing in which the strength of the Government's case is tested. “It is well established in this circuit that proffers are permissible both in the bail determination and bail revocation contexts.” United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 131 (2d Cir. 2000). Before making its prior bail determinations, the Court scrutinized, among the other relevant factors, the Government's proffer and concluded that the proffered case was strong. The ultimate merits of the Government's case will be tested at trial in front of a jury. In the meantime, it is the Court's obligation to ensure that the case proceed to that trial as expeditiously as possible, taking into account the interests of justice and all relevant circumstances. The Court is obligated to consider what is in the best interest of the public and the defendant in considering whether delay is appropriate. See 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(A). Moreover, the Crime Victims' Rights Act provides a right “to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(7). This leads directly to the question of the specific start date of trial and Maxwell's request for an adjournment. As a preliminary matter, the Court provides the following important information. Although last summer the Court set trial to commence on July 12, 2021, currently the precise start date of any trial in the Southern District of New York is not within the control of the presiding judge. SDNY is still operating under special protocols for jury selection during the COVID-19 pandemic. Because of a limited number of reconfigured courtrooms and spaces large enough to hold jury selection and trial safely, the protocols centralize the scheduling of access to juries and reconfigured courtrooms pursuant to an established protocol for trial priority. The",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003867",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Southern District of New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "July 12, 2021",
      "04/20/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 221",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003867",
      "18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(A)",
      "18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(7)",
      "210 F.3d 125, 131 (2d Cir. 2000)"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Maxwell. The text discusses the court's prior conclusions regarding flight risk, the strength of the Government's case, and the impact of COVID-19 on jury selection and trial scheduling. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}