{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "142",
    "document_number": "204",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 142 of 239\n\nFranks, 438 U.S. at 171 (\"To mandate an evidentiary hearing, the challenger's attack must be more than conclusory and must be supported by more than a mere desire to cross-examine.\") Instead, to warrant a Franks hearing:\n\n[t]here must be allegations of deliberate falsehood or of reckless disregard for the truth, and those allegations must be accompanied by an offer of proof. . . . Affidavits or sworn or otherwise reliable statements of witnesses should be furnished, or their absence satisfactorily explained. Allegations of negligence or innocent mistake are insufficient. The deliberate falsity or reckless disregard whose impeachment is permitted today is only that of the affiant, not of any nongovernmental informant.\n\nId.\n\nThe burden to even obtain a Franks hearing is a heavy one, and such hearings are thus exceedingly rare. See United States v. Brown, 744 F. Supp. 558, 567 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (\"A defendant seeking to have the Court hold a Franks hearing bears a substantial burden.\"); United States v. Swanson, 210 F.3d 788, 790 (7th Cir. 2000) (\"These elements are hard to prove, and thus Franks hearings are rarely held.\")\n\nb. Discussion\n\nIn an alternative effort to suppress the materials obtained pursuant to the subpoena, the defendant argues that an evidentiary hearing is warranted to inquire into the Government's \"misrepresentations\" to Chief Judge McMahon. (Def. Mot. 3 at 16). However, as discussed extensively above, Maxwell's motion is little more than speculation and innuendo, itself rooted in a lone news article that, as described above, is not fully accurate. She otherwise presents no admissible evidence, affidavits, or other materials supporting the breathless accusations contained in her motion papers. As such, because the defendant does not include \"an affidavit of someone with personal knowledge of the underlying facts,\" Shaw, 260 F. Supp. 2d at 570, and because the\n\n115\n\nDOJ-OGR-00003076",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 142 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Franks, 438 U.S. at 171 (\"To mandate an evidentiary hearing, the challenger's attack must be more than conclusory and must be supported by more than a mere desire to cross-examine.\") Instead, to warrant a Franks hearing:\n\n[t]here must be allegations of deliberate falsehood or of reckless disregard for the truth, and those allegations must be accompanied by an offer of proof. . . . Affidavits or sworn or otherwise reliable statements of witnesses should be furnished, or their absence satisfactorily explained. Allegations of negligence or innocent mistake are insufficient. The deliberate falsity or reckless disregard whose impeachment is permitted today is only that of the affiant, not of any nongovernmental informant.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Id.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The burden to even obtain a Franks hearing is a heavy one, and such hearings are thus exceedingly rare. See United States v. Brown, 744 F. Supp. 558, 567 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (\"A defendant seeking to have the Court hold a Franks hearing bears a substantial burden.\"); United States v. Swanson, 210 F.3d 788, 790 (7th Cir. 2000) (\"These elements are hard to prove, and thus Franks hearings are rarely held.\")",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "b. Discussion",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In an alternative effort to suppress the materials obtained pursuant to the subpoena, the defendant argues that an evidentiary hearing is warranted to inquire into the Government's \"misrepresentations\" to Chief Judge McMahon. (Def. Mot. 3 at 16). However, as discussed extensively above, Maxwell's motion is little more than speculation and innuendo, itself rooted in a lone news article that, as described above, is not fully accurate. She otherwise presents no admissible evidence, affidavits, or other materials supporting the breathless accusations contained in her motion papers. As such, because the defendant does not include \"an affidavit of someone with personal knowledge of the underlying facts,\" Shaw, 260 F. Supp. 2d at 570, and because the",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "115",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003076",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "McMahon"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y.",
      "7th Cir."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "1990",
      "2000"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "744 F. Supp. 558",
      "210 F.3d 788",
      "260 F. Supp. 2d",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003076"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}