{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "6",
    "document_number": "136-9",
    "date": "02/04/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 136-9 Filed 02/04/21 Page 6 of 33\n1\na First Amendment right to access -- pursuant to the mandate\n2\nfrom the Court of Appeals. The Court observes, however, that\n3\n\"the right of an accused to fundamental fairness in the jury\n4\nselection process\" may be a countervailing interest that weighs\n5\nagainst public access to documents.\n6\nHere, however, the Court rejects Ms. Maxwell's\n7\nargument that the unsealing of any of the materials under\n8\nconsideration today will jeopardize her right to a fair trial,\n9\nlet alone sufficiently enough to overcome the presumption of\n10\npublic access that attaches to these materials. Ms. Maxwell's\n11\nobservation of the general media coverage of the unsealing\n12\nprocess does little to show how the unsealing of any specific\n13\ninformation at issue in the current round of unsealing will\n14\njeopardize her right to a fair trial that is likely many months\n15\naway, or why this cannot be cured through the normal processes\n16\nin place for jury selection.\n17\nAs a corollary to this countervailing interest, Ms.\n18\nMaxwell argues that the unsealing process should be put on hold\n19\nbecause the Court that is overseeing her criminal prosecution\n20\nhas not yet determined whether these documents will be\n21\nconsidered admissible evidence or testimony at trial. The\n22\nCourt finds that this argument is entitled to little weight at\n23\nthis stage with respect to these specific documents. The\n24\npublic's First Amendment right of access to these documents is\n25\nnot outweighed by the prospective inadmissibility of certain of\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nDOJ-OGR-00002472",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 136-9 Filed 02/04/21 Page 6 of 33",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1\na First Amendment right to access -- pursuant to the mandate\n2\nfrom the Court of Appeals. The Court observes, however, that\n3\n\"the right of an accused to fundamental fairness in the jury\n4\nselection process\" may be a countervailing interest that weighs\n5\nagainst public access to documents.\n6\nHere, however, the Court rejects Ms. Maxwell's\n7\nargument that the unsealing of any of the materials under\n8\nconsideration today will jeopardize her right to a fair trial,\n9\nlet alone sufficiently enough to overcome the presumption of\n10\npublic access that attaches to these materials. Ms. Maxwell's\n11\nobservation of the general media coverage of the unsealing\n12\nprocess does little to show how the unsealing of any specific\n13\ninformation at issue in the current round of unsealing will\n14\njeopardize her right to a fair trial that is likely many months\n15\naway, or why this cannot be cured through the normal processes\n16\nin place for jury selection.\n17\nAs a corollary to this countervailing interest, Ms.\n18\nMaxwell argues that the unsealing process should be put on hold\n19\nbecause the Court that is overseeing her criminal prosecution\n20\nhas not yet determined whether these documents will be\n21\nconsidered admissible evidence or testimony at trial. The\n22\nCourt finds that this argument is entitled to little weight at\n23\nthis stage with respect to these specific documents. The\n24\npublic's First Amendment right of access to these documents is\n25\nnot outweighed by the prospective inadmissibility of certain of",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002472",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court of Appeals",
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/04/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "136-9",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002472"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document. The text is clear and legible, with no visible redactions or damage."
}