mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00000563.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "53",
    "document_number": "36",
    "date": "07/24/19",
    "document_type": "judicial document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 36 Filed 07/24/19 Page 53 of 74\n1 someone with more.\n2 I think in the First Amendment common law it would be\n3 a judicial document of importance to explain a judicial\n4 decision.\n5 However, there are countervailing weights, not only\n6 the bail, the pretrial statute and its confidentiality but also\n7 that we are facing a trial some day. And I know it's early,\n8 but there's an enormous amount of publicity, and every fact\n9 that is generated by this proceeding becomes the bases of an\n10 enormous amount of articles.\n11 It's one thing to say Mr. Epstein is wealthy. That's\n12 a kind of generic. It's another thing to be chasing down\n13 values and accounts. And for that reason, we ask the Court not\n14 to publish it unless it's a predicate for your Honor's release\n15 decision.\n16 And, similarly, if the government is to give you a\n17 sample of the seizures, we would make the same request, that\n18 this may be evidence some day and that it's the kind of\n19 evidence that would burden his future right to a fair and\n20 impartial jury in the Manhattan venue.\n21 Judge, unless there are other questions, I would just\n22 conclude by saying that in my many years at the bar, I've read\n23 many detention requests and I've heard many detention\n24 arguments.\n25 Mr. Rossmiller writes eloquently and speaks\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00000563",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 36 Filed 07/24/19 Page 53 of 74",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 someone with more.\n2 I think in the First Amendment common law it would be\n3 a judicial document of importance to explain a judicial\n4 decision.\n5 However, there are countervailing weights, not only\n6 the bail, the pretrial statute and its confidentiality but also\n7 that we are facing a trial some day. And I know it's early,\n8 but there's an enormous amount of publicity, and every fact\n9 that is generated by this proceeding becomes the bases of an\n10 enormous amount of articles.\n11 It's one thing to say Mr. Epstein is wealthy. That's\n12 a kind of generic. It's another thing to be chasing down\n13 values and accounts. And for that reason, we ask the Court not\n14 to publish it unless it's a predicate for your Honor's release\n15 decision.\n16 And, similarly, if the government is to give you a\n17 sample of the seizures, we would make the same request, that\n18 this may be evidence some day and that it's the kind of\n19 evidence that would burden his future right to a fair and\n20 impartial jury in the Manhattan venue.\n21 Judge, unless there are other questions, I would just\n22 conclude by saying that in my many years at the bar, I've read\n23 many detention requests and I've heard many detention\n24 arguments.\n25 Mr. Rossmiller writes eloquently and speaks",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00000563",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Mr. Epstein",
      "Mr. Rossmiller"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Manhattan"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "07/24/19"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:19-cr-00490-RMB",
      "Document 36",
      "DOJ-OGR-00000563"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible text. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}