{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "1",
    "document_number": "27",
    "date": "July 21, 2020",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 27 Filed 07/21/20 Page 1 of 7\nHaddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C\nJeffrey Pagliuca\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, Colorado 80203\nPH 303.831.7364 Fx 303.832.2628\nwww.hmflaw.com\njpagliuca@hmflaw.com\nJuly 21, 2020\nVIA ECF\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nUnited States District Court\nSouthern District of New York\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, NY 10007\nRe: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Case No. 20 Cr. 330 (AJN), Local Criminal Rule 23.1\nDear Judge Nathan,\nOn behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, we write to request that the Court enter an order prohibiting the Government, its agents and counsel for witnesses from making extrajudicial statements concerning this case. Although Ms. Maxwell is presumed innocent, the Government, its agents, witnesses and their lawyers have made, and continue to make, statements prejudicial to a fair trial. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees an accused the right to an impartial jury. This fundamental guarantee is part of a criminal defendant's basic right to a fair trial, which requires that a defendant must be judged by a jury of her peers based on evidence presented at trial, not in the media. The Court, to safeguard the due process rights of the accused, has \"an affirmative constitutional duty to minimize the effects of prejudicial pretrial publicity.\" Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 378 (1979). This District has given effect to this Sixth Amendment right through Local Criminal Rule 23.1. Accordingly, Ms. Maxwell requests that the Court exercise its express power under Local Criminal Rule 23.1(h) and enter an Order requiring compliance with that rule to prevent further unwarranted and prejudicial pretrial publicity by the Government, its agents, and lawyers for alleged witnesses.\nLegal Standard\nMore than fifty years ago, warning of the danger of pretrial publicity to fair trials, the Supreme Court directed trial judges to take \"such steps by rule and regulation that will protect their processes from prejudicial outside interferences. Neither prosecutors, counsel for defense, the accused, witnesses, court staff nor enforcement officers coming under the jurisdiction of the court should be permitted to frustrate its function.\" Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 363 (1966) (emphasis added).\nDOJ-OGR-00001635",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 27 Filed 07/21/20 Page 1 of 7",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C\nJeffrey Pagliuca\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, Colorado 80203\nPH 303.831.7364 Fx 303.832.2628\nwww.hmflaw.com\njpagliuca@hmflaw.com",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "July 21, 2020\nVIA ECF\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nUnited States District Court\nSouthern District of New York\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, NY 10007",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Case No. 20 Cr. 330 (AJN), Local Criminal Rule 23.1\nDear Judge Nathan,",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "On behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, we write to request that the Court enter an order prohibiting the Government, its agents and counsel for witnesses from making extrajudicial statements concerning this case. Although Ms. Maxwell is presumed innocent, the Government, its agents, witnesses and their lawyers have made, and continue to make, statements prejudicial to a fair trial. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees an accused the right to an impartial jury. This fundamental guarantee is part of a criminal defendant's basic right to a fair trial, which requires that a defendant must be judged by a jury of her peers based on evidence presented at trial, not in the media. The Court, to safeguard the due process rights of the accused, has \"an affirmative constitutional duty to minimize the effects of prejudicial pretrial publicity.\" Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 378 (1979). This District has given effect to this Sixth Amendment right through Local Criminal Rule 23.1. Accordingly, Ms. Maxwell requests that the Court exercise its express power under Local Criminal Rule 23.1(h) and enter an Order requiring compliance with that rule to prevent further unwarranted and prejudicial pretrial publicity by the Government, its agents, and lawyers for alleged witnesses.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Legal Standard\nMore than fifty years ago, warning of the danger of pretrial publicity to fair trials, the Supreme Court directed trial judges to take \"such steps by rule and regulation that will protect their processes from prejudicial outside interferences. Neither prosecutors, counsel for defense, the accused, witnesses, court staff nor enforcement officers coming under the jurisdiction of the court should be permitted to frustrate its function.\" Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 363 (1966) (emphasis added).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00001635",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jeffrey Pagliuca",
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Ghislaine Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C",
      "United States District Court",
      "Southern District of New York"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Denver, Colorado",
      "New York, NY"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "July 21, 2020",
      "1966",
      "1979"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 27",
      "Case No. 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00001635"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letterhead indicates it is from the law firm Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. The document is typed and contains legal citations and references to court rules."
}