{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "document_number": "217",
    "date": "04/19/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 217 Filed 04/19/21 Page 4 of 6\nThe Hon. Alison J. Nathan\nApril 1, 2021\nPage 4\n\nPublicity concerning pretrial suppression hearings such as the one involved in the present case poses special risks of unfairness. The whole purpose of such hearings is to screen out unreliable or illegally obtained evidence and insure that this evidence does not become known to the jury. Cf. Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368. Publicity concerning the proceedings at a pretrial hearing, however, could influence public opinion against a defendant and inform potential jurors of inculpatory information wholly inadmissible at the actual trial.\n\nThe danger of publicity concerning pretrial suppression hearings is particularly acute, because it may be difficult to measure with any degree of certainty the effects of such publicity on the fairness of the trial. After the commencement of the trial itself, inadmissible prejudicial information about a defendant can be kept from a jury by a variety of means.5 When such information is publicized during a pretrial proceeding, however, it may never be altogether kept from potential jurors.\n\nGannett Co., Inc. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 378-79 (U.S. 1979). Every sentence that is publicly released in this case has been widely publicized, in print, broadcast and online media, both within and without this jurisdiction. Quotations from testimony concerning “three-way sexual” activity and “sex toys” “cater to a ‘craving for that which is sensational and impure’” rather than serve a legitimate issue of public interest. Dkt. No. 168 (citing Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1051).2\n\nFinally, the fact that the government has already publicized – in the Indictment – some of the testimony that it unconstitutionally obtained should not be rewarded. “That some information relating to the documents in question already has been discussed on the public\n\n2 Among the “subject matters [which] presumptively involve a substantial likelihood that their public dissemination will interfere with a fair trail or otherwise prejudice the due administration of justice within the meaning of this rule” pursuant to Local Cr. Rule 23.1 are the “contents of any confession, admission or statement given by the accused.”\n\nDOJ-OGR-00003850",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 217 Filed 04/19/21 Page 4 of 6",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Hon. Alison J. Nathan\nApril 1, 2021\nPage 4",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Publicity concerning pretrial suppression hearings such as the one involved in the present case poses special risks of unfairness. The whole purpose of such hearings is to screen out unreliable or illegally obtained evidence and insure that this evidence does not become known to the jury. Cf. Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368. Publicity concerning the proceedings at a pretrial hearing, however, could influence public opinion against a defendant and inform potential jurors of inculpatory information wholly inadmissible at the actual trial.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The danger of publicity concerning pretrial suppression hearings is particularly acute, because it may be difficult to measure with any degree of certainty the effects of such publicity on the fairness of the trial. After the commencement of the trial itself, inadmissible prejudicial information about a defendant can be kept from a jury by a variety of means.5 When such information is publicized during a pretrial proceeding, however, it may never be altogether kept from potential jurors.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Gannett Co., Inc. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 378-79 (U.S. 1979). Every sentence that is publicly released in this case has been widely publicized, in print, broadcast and online media, both within and without this jurisdiction. Quotations from testimony concerning “three-way sexual” activity and “sex toys” “cater to a ‘craving for that which is sensational and impure’” rather than serve a legitimate issue of public interest. Dkt. No. 168 (citing Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1051).2",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Finally, the fact that the government has already publicized – in the Indictment – some of the testimony that it unconstitutionally obtained should not be rewarded. “That some information relating to the documents in question already has been discussed on the public",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2 Among the “subject matters [which] presumptively involve a substantial likelihood that their public dissemination will interfere with a fair trail or otherwise prejudice the due administration of justice within the meaning of this rule” pursuant to Local Cr. Rule 23.1 are the “contents of any confession, admission or statement given by the accused.”",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003850",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Jackson",
      "Denno",
      "DePasquale",
      "Amodeo II"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Gannett Co., Inc.",
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "April 1, 2021",
      "04/19/21",
      "1979"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 217",
      "Dkt. No. 168",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003850"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text discusses the potential impact of pretrial publicity on the fairness of a trial. The document includes citations to legal precedents and references to specific court rules."
}