{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "document_number": "315",
    "date": "07/30/21",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": true,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 315 Filed 07/30/21 Page 3 of 3\n\nprovides illustrative examples of statements that \"presumptively involve a substantial likelihood that their public dissemination will interfere with a fair trial or otherwise prejudice the due administration of justice within the meaning of the rule.\" S.D.N.Y. Local Criminal Rule 23(d).\n\nGoing forward, Mr. Markus and all lawyers associated with the pending case are now clearly on notice that their conduct falls under the purview of Local Criminal Rule 23.1. Indeed, the above concerns do not apply only to Mr. Markus. This Court has previously noted that \"counsel[,] agents for the parties and counsel for potential witnesses\" must take care to \"protect the Defendant's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.\" Dkt. No. 28. This Court is cognizant that criminal matters heading toward trial are especially sensitive to extrajudicial statements. All those associated with this case must act to ensure the case is tried solely in court or else they risk being deemed responsible for any trial delay or for undermining the integrity of the upcoming trial. See S.D.N.Y. Local Criminal Rule 23.1(h). In addition to the impact it could have on this matter, failure to comply could also result in attorney discipline. Id. Rule 23.1(i).\n\nSO ORDERED.\n\nDated: July 30, 2021\nNew York, New York\n\nALISON J. NATHAN\nUnited States District Judge\n\n3\nDOJ-OGR-00004964",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 315 Filed 07/30/21 Page 3 of 3",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "provides illustrative examples of statements that \"presumptively involve a substantial likelihood that their public dissemination will interfere with a fair trial or otherwise prejudice the due administration of justice within the meaning of the rule.\" S.D.N.Y. Local Criminal Rule 23(d).\n\nGoing forward, Mr. Markus and all lawyers associated with the pending case are now clearly on notice that their conduct falls under the purview of Local Criminal Rule 23.1. Indeed, the above concerns do not apply only to Mr. Markus. This Court has previously noted that \"counsel[,] agents for the parties and counsel for potential witnesses\" must take care to \"protect the Defendant's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.\" Dkt. No. 28. This Court is cognizant that criminal matters heading toward trial are especially sensitive to extrajudicial statements. All those associated with this case must act to ensure the case is tried solely in court or else they risk being deemed responsible for any trial delay or for undermining the integrity of the upcoming trial. See S.D.N.Y. Local Criminal Rule 23.1(h). In addition to the impact it could have on this matter, failure to comply could also result in attorney discipline. Id. Rule 23.1(i).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SO ORDERED.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Dated: July 30, 2021\nNew York, New York",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "signature",
      "content": "ALISON J. NATHAN",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "United States District Judge",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004964",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Mr. Markus",
      "ALISON J. NATHAN"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "July 30, 2021",
      "07/30/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 315",
      "Dkt. No. 28",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004964"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court order from a United States District Judge. The text is mostly printed, with a signature at the bottom. There are no visible stamps or annotations."
}