{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "108",
    "document_number": "39-2",
    "date": "04/01/2021",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 21-58, Document 39-2, 04/01/2021, 3068530, Page108 of 200\n\nk7e2MaxC kjc\n\n1 377(1), and we understand that the court is following the\n2 statute. The statute gives alleged victims the right to speak\n3 through counsel, through the government, or directly, and be\n4 heard, and we understand that, your Honor.\n5 The question today before the court, we submit, is\n6 whether or not our client could be released or should be\n7 released on a condition or combination of conditions to assure\n8 her appearance. And as to that question, the presentations\n9 today do not speak, they do not speak to risk of flight, and\n10 the courts have -- in this circuit have thought about and\n11 researched what weight should be given to that. There is an\n12 opinion by Judge Orenstein in the Eastern District, United\n13 States v. Turner, from April 2005, not cited by the government,\n14 in which the court, after carefully surveying the legislative\n15 history and background of the CVRA and its interplay with the\n16 bail reform statute, concluded, \"In considering how to ensure\n17 that the rights are afforded, I am cognizant that the new law\n18 gives crime victims a voice but not a veto. Of particular\n19 relevance to this case, a court's obligation to protect the\n20 victim's rights and to carefully consider any objections that\n21 victim may have never requires it to deny a defendant release\n22 on conditions that will adequately secure the defendant's\n23 appearance,\" going on to cite the Senate legislative history\n24 that's being cited with approval of United States v. Rubin,\n25 also an Eastern District case.\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nDOJ-OGR-00019967",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 21-58, Document 39-2, 04/01/2021, 3068530, Page108 of 200",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 377(1), and we understand that the court is following the statute. The statute gives alleged victims the right to speak through counsel, through the government, or directly, and be heard, and we understand that, your Honor. The question today before the court, we submit, is whether or not our client could be released or should be released on a condition or combination of conditions to assure her appearance. And as to that question, the presentations today do not speak, they do not speak to risk of flight, and the courts have -- in this circuit have thought about and researched what weight should be given to that. There is an opinion by Judge Orenstein in the Eastern District, United States v. Turner, from April 2005, not cited by the government, in which the court, after carefully surveying the legislative history and background of the CVRA and its interplay with the bail reform statute, concluded, \"In considering how to ensure that the rights are afforded, I am cognizant that the new law gives crime victims a voice but not a veto. Of particular relevance to this case, a court's obligation to protect the victim's rights and to carefully consider any objections that victim may have never requires it to deny a defendant release on conditions that will adequately secure the defendant's appearance,\" going on to cite the Senate legislative history that's being cited with approval of United States v. Rubin, also an Eastern District case.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019967",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Judge Orenstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Eastern District"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/01/2021",
      "April 2005"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 21-58",
      "Document 39-2",
      "3068530",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019967"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}