{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "6",
    "document_number": "590",
    "date": "02/01/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 590 Filed 02/01/22 Page 6 of 9\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nFebruary 1, 2022\nPage 6\nThere is a substantial probability that Ms. Maxwell's fair trial rights will be prejudiced if the Motion is unsealed prior to the resolution of the Motion or prior to the completion of any fact-gathering process or hearing ordered by the Court. As previously discussed, unsealing the Motion will give Juror 50 an improper preview of the defense's position at any factual hearing the Court may order, including the defense's legal theories and arguments and our interpretation of the underlying facts. It will also give Juror 50 access to information that he should not have, including a summary of the additional evidence we have gathered, data about the responses of other jurors and potential jurors to the jury questionnaire, specific defense requests for pre-hearing discovery, and the completed questionnaire itself, which is currently not publicly available and is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Motion.2\nIf Juror 50 has access to this information in advance of a factual hearing, should the Court order one, there is a substantial risk that he will tailor his answers, influence other witnesses, or even destroy evidence, to protect himself and explain away inconvenient facts. This will frustrate the truth-seeking purpose of the hearing as well as Ms. Maxwell's efforts to vindicate her right to a fair trial. Indeed, defense counsel is effectively functioning as a prosecutor with respect to this issue and the Motion sets forth our theory of the case. Unsealing the Motion would be the equivalent of unsealing a search warrant affidavit to the subjects of a criminal investigation and should be avoided for all the same reasons. Cf. In re Sealed Search Warrants Issued June 4 and 5,\n2 Whether Juror 50 should be given access to his completed jury questionnaire in advance of any hearing ordered by the Court—and if so, how far in advance—are questions that need not be resolved now and should be considered separately at a later time. The Motion, including the completed questionnaire, should be sealed in its entirety until the Court decides on a course of action.\n2087306.1\nDOJ-OGR-00008857",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 590 Filed 02/01/22 Page 6 of 9",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nFebruary 1, 2022\nPage 6",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "There is a substantial probability that Ms. Maxwell's fair trial rights will be prejudiced if the Motion is unsealed prior to the resolution of the Motion or prior to the completion of any fact-gathering process or hearing ordered by the Court. As previously discussed, unsealing the Motion will give Juror 50 an improper preview of the defense's position at any factual hearing the Court may order, including the defense's legal theories and arguments and our interpretation of the underlying facts. It will also give Juror 50 access to information that he should not have, including a summary of the additional evidence we have gathered, data about the responses of other jurors and potential jurors to the jury questionnaire, specific defense requests for pre-hearing discovery, and the completed questionnaire itself, which is currently not publicly available and is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Motion.2",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "If Juror 50 has access to this information in advance of a factual hearing, should the Court order one, there is a substantial risk that he will tailor his answers, influence other witnesses, or even destroy evidence, to protect himself and explain away inconvenient facts. This will frustrate the truth-seeking purpose of the hearing as well as Ms. Maxwell's efforts to vindicate her right to a fair trial. Indeed, defense counsel is effectively functioning as a prosecutor with respect to this issue and the Motion sets forth our theory of the case. Unsealing the Motion would be the equivalent of unsealing a search warrant affidavit to the subjects of a criminal investigation and should be avoided for all the same reasons. Cf. In re Sealed Search Warrants Issued June 4 and 5,",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2 Whether Juror 50 should be given access to his completed jury questionnaire in advance of any hearing ordered by the Court—and if so, how far in advance—are questions that need not be resolved now and should be considered separately at a later time. The Motion, including the completed questionnaire, should be sealed in its entirety until the Court decides on a course of action.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2087306.1\nDOJ-OGR-00008857",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Juror 50"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "February 1, 2022",
      "June 4",
      "June 5"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 590",
      "2087306.1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008857"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text discusses the potential risks of unsealing a motion and the importance of maintaining the integrity of the trial process. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}