{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "document_number": "53",
    "date": "09/03/19",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 53 Filed 09/03/19 Page 4 of 86\nJ8RsEPS1\nrelatively straightforward. In my view, a public hearing clearly is nevertheless the preferred vehicle for its resolution.\nIncidentally, while I'm on this subject, I got some help today from the New York Law Journal from two professors who write that a hearing is -- let me tell you exactly what they said. They say, in part, that this is an odd moment for transparency in a criminal case. I think that is an odd sentence to hear about, transparency in a criminal case.\nThey go on to say that normally, if a prosecutor seeks to dismiss an indictment for such an obviously worthy reason, the court would simply grant the request. As to that statement, I respectfully say it is incorrect as a matter of law.\nThey go on to say the judge would not schedule a hearing and he definitely would not allow the victims to speak. If he did hold a hearing, whatever informational interests the victims may have would be served by affording them a chance to attend the hearing, not by giving them a speaking role.\nI read it. It was incredulous. I'm still incredulous. I don't quite understand at all. There is a suggestion in the article that the reason they are making these suggestions has to do with minimization of drama in this case. In the Jeffrey Epstein case, there has not been much a minimization of drama, and what little drama might happen\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00000642",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 53 Filed 09/03/19 Page 4 of 86",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "J8RsEPS1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "relatively straightforward. In my view, a public hearing clearly is nevertheless the preferred vehicle for its resolution.\nIncidentally, while I'm on this subject, I got some help today from the New York Law Journal from two professors who write that a hearing is -- let me tell you exactly what they said. They say, in part, that this is an odd moment for transparency in a criminal case. I think that is an odd sentence to hear about, transparency in a criminal case.\nThey go on to say that normally, if a prosecutor seeks to dismiss an indictment for such an obviously worthy reason, the court would simply grant the request. As to that statement, I respectfully say it is incorrect as a matter of law.\nThey go on to say the judge would not schedule a hearing and he definitely would not allow the victims to speak. If he did hold a hearing, whatever informational interests the victims may have would be served by affording them a chance to attend the hearing, not by giving them a speaking role.\nI read it. It was incredulous. I'm still incredulous. I don't quite understand at all. There is a suggestion in the article that the reason they are making these suggestions has to do with minimization of drama in this case. In the Jeffrey Epstein case, there has not been much a minimization of drama, and what little drama might happen",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00000642",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jeffrey Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "New York Law Journal",
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "09/03/19"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:19-cr-00490-RMB",
      "Document 53",
      "DOJ-OGR-00000642"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document related to the Jeffrey Epstein case. The text is printed and there are no visible handwritten notes or stamps. The document includes a header with case information and a footer with the name and contact information of the reporting agency."
}