{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "8",
    "document_number": "69",
    "date": "09/28/2020",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 20-3061, Document 69, 09/28/2020, 2940206, Page8 of 15\n\nthe parties during a criminal case are not subject to interlocutory appeal.\" Doc. 37, p 11. That is not correct.\n\nIn Caparros, this Court dismissed an appeal of a protective order issued in a criminal case preventing the defendant from making public certain documents allegedly concerning public safety. 800 F.2d at 23-24. According to the defendant, the prohibition on public disclosure was an unconstitutional prior restraint of speech. Id. at 24. This Court dismissed the appeal because it did not satisfy the three conditions precedent to interlocutory review, in particular the requirement that the issue must be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. Id. at 24–26. Said the Court:\n\n[The issue] will not become moot on conviction and sentence or on acquittal because the order will have continuing prohibitive effect thereafter and the purported right to publish the documents, to the extent it now exists, will also continue. This is not a situation where an order, to be reviewed at all, must be reviewed before the proceedings terminate. Nor is there any allegation of grave harm to appellant if the order is not immediately reviewed.\n\nId. at 26 (internal citations omitted).\n\nThis case is not like Caparros. For one thing, Ms. Maxwell does not seek to make anything public. To the contrary, she seeks to provide documents to judicial officers—under seal—to ensure that all the Article III decisionmakers are on the same page about the relevant facts and that Judge Preska does not continue to\n\n7\n\nDOJ-OGR-00019599",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 20-3061, Document 69, 09/28/2020, 2940206, Page8 of 15",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "the parties during a criminal case are not subject to interlocutory appeal.\" Doc. 37, p 11. That is not correct.\n\nIn Caparros, this Court dismissed an appeal of a protective order issued in a criminal case preventing the defendant from making public certain documents allegedly concerning public safety. 800 F.2d at 23-24. According to the defendant, the prohibition on public disclosure was an unconstitutional prior restraint of speech. Id. at 24. This Court dismissed the appeal because it did not satisfy the three conditions precedent to interlocutory review, in particular the requirement that the issue must be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. Id. at 24–26. Said the Court:",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "[The issue] will not become moot on conviction and sentence or on acquittal because the order will have continuing prohibitive effect thereafter and the purported right to publish the documents, to the extent it now exists, will also continue. This is not a situation where an order, to be reviewed at all, must be reviewed before the proceedings terminate. Nor is there any allegation of grave harm to appellant if the order is not immediately reviewed.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Id. at 26 (internal citations omitted).\n\nThis case is not like Caparros. For one thing, Ms. Maxwell does not seek to make anything public. To the contrary, she seeks to provide documents to judicial officers—under seal—to ensure that all the Article III decisionmakers are on the same page about the relevant facts and that Judge Preska does not continue to",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "7",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019599",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Judge Preska"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "09/28/2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 20-3061",
      "Document 69",
      "2940206",
      "Doc. 37",
      "800 F.2d",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019599"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to Case 20-3061. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}