{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "30",
    "document_number": "663",
    "date": "06/15/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 30 of 77\nconfinement, conditions far more arduous than those experienced by pretrial detainees, or even sentenced prisoners, in general population. Beyond duration of confinement (the quantitative measure of imprisonment), she was subjected to disparate treatment (e.g., long-term isolation and unusual restrictions and deprivation) amounting to a profound qualitative difference.\nPre-Sentence Detention Should Not Be Pre-Sentence Punishment\nConvicted offenders are sent to prison as punishment, not for punishment. Despite complaints made by Ms. Maxwell and her counsel, the MDC and BOP officials retained unchecked authority to incarcerate her as they pleased on conditions that constituted unusual punishment for a non-violent pretrial detainee who posed no threat to herself or others. Ms. Maxwell bore the brunt of unusual conditions imposed by unfettered prison bureaucrats. The Supreme Court defines “unusual” as “something different from that which is generally done.”18 Under an original understanding of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause (U.S. Const. amend. viii), “a punishment is cruel and unusual if it is overly harsh in light of longstanding practice.”19 Ms. Maxwell’s conditions of confinement were significantly and unjustifiably harsher than conditions in general population making it cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment. Following Ms. Maxwell’s arrest, then-Attorney General William Barr was intent on making sure what happened to Epstein while in BOP custody would not be repeated and issued directives to be applied exclusively to Ms. Maxwell. The rough, discriminatory, and punitive treatment was implemented and condoned by supervisors and wardens.20\n18 Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 100-01 n.32 (citations omitted).\n19 John F. Stinneford, The Original Meaning of “Cruel,” 105 GEO. L.J. 441, 467 (2017); The Original Meaning of Unusual: The Eighth Amendment as a Bar to Cruel Innovation, 102 NW. U. L. Rev. 1739, 1745 (2008)\n20 During Ms. Maxwell’s detention, approximately ten wardens have rotated in an out of the MDC.\n29\nDOJ-OGR-00010476",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 663 Filed 06/15/22 Page 30 of 77",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "confinement, conditions far more arduous than those experienced by pretrial detainees, or even sentenced prisoners, in general population. Beyond duration of confinement (the quantitative measure of imprisonment), she was subjected to disparate treatment (e.g., long-term isolation and unusual restrictions and deprivation) amounting to a profound qualitative difference.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Pre-Sentence Detention Should Not Be Pre-Sentence Punishment",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Convicted offenders are sent to prison as punishment, not for punishment. Despite complaints made by Ms. Maxwell and her counsel, the MDC and BOP officials retained unchecked authority to incarcerate her as they pleased on conditions that constituted unusual punishment for a non-violent pretrial detainee who posed no threat to herself or others. Ms. Maxwell bore the brunt of unusual conditions imposed by unfettered prison bureaucrats. The Supreme Court defines “unusual” as “something different from that which is generally done.”18 Under an original understanding of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause (U.S. Const. amend. viii), “a punishment is cruel and unusual if it is overly harsh in light of longstanding practice.”19 Ms. Maxwell’s conditions of confinement were significantly and unjustifiably harsher than conditions in general population making it cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment. Following Ms. Maxwell’s arrest, then-Attorney General William Barr was intent on making sure what happened to Epstein while in BOP custody would not be repeated and issued directives to be applied exclusively to Ms. Maxwell. The rough, discriminatory, and punitive treatment was implemented and condoned by supervisors and wardens.20",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "18 Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 100-01 n.32 (citations omitted).\n19 John F. Stinneford, The Original Meaning of “Cruel,” 105 GEO. L.J. 441, 467 (2017); The Original Meaning of Unusual: The Eighth Amendment as a Bar to Cruel Innovation, 102 NW. U. L. Rev. 1739, 1745 (2008)\n20 During Ms. Maxwell’s detention, approximately ten wardens have rotated in an out of the MDC.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "29",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010476",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "William Barr",
      "Epstein",
      "John F. Stinneford"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "MDC",
      "BOP",
      "Supreme Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "06/15/22",
      "2017",
      "2008"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "663",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010476"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing discussing the conditions of confinement for Ms. Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is likely a PDF of a court filing."
}