{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "136",
    "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 136 of 239\n\n\"While the Constitution guarantees a fair trial through the Due Process Clauses . . . it defines the basic elements of a fair trial largely through the several provisions of the Sixth Amendment.\" Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617, 633 (1989) (citations omitted). \"The right of an accused in a criminal trial to due process is, in essence, the right to a fair opportunity to defend against the State's accusations. The rights to confront and cross-examine witnesses and to call witnesses in one's own behalf have long been recognized as essential to due process.\" Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294 (1973). And as noted, the defendant cites no legal authority supporting the proposition that the Government's actions during its investigation have somehow deprived her of a fair trial or otherwise violated her due process rights. In short, none of Maxwell's allegations of misconduct rises to the level of a due process violation.\n\nDismissal of Counts Five and Six of the Indictment would be all the more unwarranted here, where there was no outrageous Government misconduct and where the defendant cannot show that the Government's behavior prejudiced her defense or legal representation. Similarly, because there was no misconduct by the Government, there is no basis to suppress the evidence obtained pursuant to the subpoena. The defendant's motion—unsupported by the law and the facts—must be denied.\n\n5. The Court Should Not Exercise Its Inherent Authority to Order Suppression\n\nThe defendant urges the Court to exercise its inherent authority to order suppression. This Court should decline the defendant's invitation to exercise this sparingly used power.\n\na. Applicable Law\n\n\"[T]he Supreme Court has recognized three purposes for the supervisory powers, 'to implement a remedy for violation of recognized rights, to preserve judicial integrity by ensuring that a conviction rests on appropriate considerations validly before a jury, and finally, as a remedy 109\n\nDOJ-OGR-00003070",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 136 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "\"While the Constitution guarantees a fair trial through the Due Process Clauses . . . it defines the basic elements of a fair trial largely through the several provisions of the Sixth Amendment.\" Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617, 633 (1989) (citations omitted). \"The right of an accused in a criminal trial to due process is, in essence, the right to a fair opportunity to defend against the State's accusations. The rights to confront and cross-examine witnesses and to call witnesses in one's own behalf have long been recognized as essential to due process.\" Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294 (1973). And as noted, the defendant cites no legal authority supporting the proposition that the Government's actions during its investigation have somehow deprived her of a fair trial or otherwise violated her due process rights. In short, none of Maxwell's allegations of misconduct rises to the level of a due process violation.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Dismissal of Counts Five and Six of the Indictment would be all the more unwarranted here, where there was no outrageous Government misconduct and where the defendant cannot show that the Government's behavior prejudiced her defense or legal representation. Similarly, because there was no misconduct by the Government, there is no basis to suppress the evidence obtained pursuant to the subpoena. The defendant's motion—unsupported by the law and the facts—must be denied.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "5. The Court Should Not Exercise Its Inherent Authority to Order Suppression",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defendant urges the Court to exercise its inherent authority to order suppression. This Court should decline the defendant's invitation to exercise this sparingly used power.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "a. Applicable Law",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "\"[T]he Supreme Court has recognized three purposes for the supervisory powers, 'to implement a remedy for violation of recognized rights, to preserve judicial integrity by ensuring that a conviction rests on appropriate considerations validly before a jury, and finally, as a remedy",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "109",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003070",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Supreme Court",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "United States",
      "Mississippi"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "1989",
      "1973"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003070",
      "491 U.S. 617",
      "410 U.S. 284"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is likely a page from a larger filing."
}