{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "18",
    "document_number": "675",
    "date": "06/25/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 675 Filed 06/25/22 Page 18 of 21\njustice system for crime victims of wealthy defendants.\" In re Wild, 994 F.3d at 1327 (11th Cir. en banc 2021) (Hull, J., dissenting). And Epstein's escape from conviction through apparent suicide in circumstances where federal authorities should have been more vigilant has created a widely spread meme that \"Epstein didn't kill himself.\"4\nAgainst this backdrop, if Maxwell's victims are prevented from speaking at her sentencing, it will compound the public perception that the conspiracy's victims are being silenced and that co-conspirators continue to receive favorable treatment. The best way to dispel this public perception is for the Court to broadly permit all Maxwell's victims who wish to be heard at sentencing to speak.\nJudge Berman of this Court wisely recognized these realities in allowing all of Epstein's victims to speak at the court hearing where Epstein's criminal charges were dismissed after his death. See U.S. v. Epstein, Case No. 19-cr-490-RMB (S.D.N.Y. hearing transcript Aug. 27, 2019). As Judge Berman explained: \"Public hearings are exactly what judges do. Hearings promote transparency and they provide the court with insights and information which the court may not otherwise be aware of. The victims have been included in the proceeding today both because of their relevant experiences and because they should always be involved before rather than after the fact.\" Aug. 27, 2019, Hrng. Trans. at 5. See generally Paul G. Cassell & Bradley J. Edwards, Hearing on Dismissing Epstein Charges was not \"Drama\" but Proper Respect for Victims, N.Y.L.J., Aug. 28, 2019.5\nOf course, exactly the same point about the need to promote \"transparency\" can be made in this case—particularly since the Justice Department has yet to announce any other indictments of\n4 See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epstein_didn%27t_kill_himself.\n5 https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2019/08/28/hearing-on-dismissing-epstein-charges-was-not-drama-but-proper-respect-for-victims\n18\nDOJ-OGR-00010709",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 675 Filed 06/25/22 Page 18 of 21",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "justice system for crime victims of wealthy defendants.\" In re Wild, 994 F.3d at 1327 (11th Cir. en banc 2021) (Hull, J., dissenting). And Epstein's escape from conviction through apparent suicide in circumstances where federal authorities should have been more vigilant has created a widely spread meme that \"Epstein didn't kill himself.\"4\nAgainst this backdrop, if Maxwell's victims are prevented from speaking at her sentencing, it will compound the public perception that the conspiracy's victims are being silenced and that co-conspirators continue to receive favorable treatment. The best way to dispel this public perception is for the Court to broadly permit all Maxwell's victims who wish to be heard at sentencing to speak.\nJudge Berman of this Court wisely recognized these realities in allowing all of Epstein's victims to speak at the court hearing where Epstein's criminal charges were dismissed after his death. See U.S. v. Epstein, Case No. 19-cr-490-RMB (S.D.N.Y. hearing transcript Aug. 27, 2019). As Judge Berman explained: \"Public hearings are exactly what judges do. Hearings promote transparency and they provide the court with insights and information which the court may not otherwise be aware of. The victims have been included in the proceeding today both because of their relevant experiences and because they should always be involved before rather than after the fact.\" Aug. 27, 2019, Hrng. Trans. at 5. See generally Paul G. Cassell & Bradley J. Edwards, Hearing on Dismissing Epstein Charges was not \"Drama\" but Proper Respect for Victims, N.Y.L.J., Aug. 28, 2019.5\nOf course, exactly the same point about the need to promote \"transparency\" can be made in this case—particularly since the Justice Department has yet to announce any other indictments of",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4 See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epstein_didn%27t_kill_himself.\n5 https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2019/08/28/hearing-on-dismissing-epstein-charges-was-not-drama-but-proper-respect-for-victims",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "18",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010709",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Hull",
      "Epstein",
      "Maxwell",
      "Berman",
      "Paul G. Cassell",
      "Bradley J. Edwards"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Justice Department"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "06/25/22",
      "Aug. 27, 2019",
      "Aug. 28, 2019"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 675",
      "Case No. 19-cr-490-RMB"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text discusses the importance of allowing victims to speak at sentencing hearings and references a previous case involving Jeffrey Epstein."
}