mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00001338.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "21",
    "document_number": "40-1",
    "date": "04/12/2021",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 21-770, Document 40-1, 04/12/2021, 3075763, Page21 of 25\n\n38. At the outset, it bears noting that Maxwell only specifically invoked Section 3142(i) in her first bail motion. (Ex. B at 5-9). Judge Nathan denied her request for temporary release under that provision, noting that the case was in its early stages and that the MDC has established procedures to ensure access to counsel despite the pandemic. (Ex. D at 89-90). Nevertheless, Judge Nathan ordered the Government to work with the defense to ensure adequate access to counsel and invited Maxwell to make further applications if the accommodations were \"inadequate in any way.\" (Id. at 90-91). Maxwell did not appeal Judge Nathan's first detention order. Instead, she repeatedly availed herself of the invitation to raise concerns about her access to counsel, and Judge Nathan responded with significant oversight of Maxwell's conditions of confinement. (See Gov't Ex. A). Thus, when Maxwell again cited her conditions of confinement in her second bail motion—though she did not, this time, invoke Section 3142(i) (Ex. E at 35-38)—Judge Nathan observed that Maxwell \"does not meaningfully dispute that she has received more time than any other inmate at the MDC to review her discovery and as much, if not more, time to communicate with her attorneys.\" (Ex. H at 20). And, again, Judge Nathan made clear that she would \"continue to ensure\" that Maxwell has such accommodations as are necessary to prepare her defense and invited Maxwell to make further applications. (Id. at 20 n.3). Judge Nathan continued to oversee\n\n21\n\nDOJ-OGR-00001338",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 21-770, Document 40-1, 04/12/2021, 3075763, Page21 of 25",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "38. At the outset, it bears noting that Maxwell only specifically invoked Section 3142(i) in her first bail motion. (Ex. B at 5-9). Judge Nathan denied her request for temporary release under that provision, noting that the case was in its early stages and that the MDC has established procedures to ensure access to counsel despite the pandemic. (Ex. D at 89-90). Nevertheless, Judge Nathan ordered the Government to work with the defense to ensure adequate access to counsel and invited Maxwell to make further applications if the accommodations were \"inadequate in any way.\" (Id. at 90-91). Maxwell did not appeal Judge Nathan's first detention order. Instead, she repeatedly availed herself of the invitation to raise concerns about her access to counsel, and Judge Nathan responded with significant oversight of Maxwell's conditions of confinement. (See Gov't Ex. A). Thus, when Maxwell again cited her conditions of confinement in her second bail motion—though she did not, this time, invoke Section 3142(i) (Ex. E at 35-38)—Judge Nathan observed that Maxwell \"does not meaningfully dispute that she has received more time than any other inmate at the MDC to review her discovery and as much, if not more, time to communicate with her attorneys.\" (Ex. H at 20). And, again, Judge Nathan made clear that she would \"continue to ensure\" that Maxwell has such accommodations as are necessary to prepare her defense and invited Maxwell to make further applications. (Id. at 20 n.3). Judge Nathan continued to oversee",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "21",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00001338",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Judge Nathan"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "MDC",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/12/2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 21-770",
      "Document 40-1",
      "3075763",
      "DOJ-OGR-00001338"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Maxwell. The text discusses the conditions of Maxwell's confinement and her access to counsel. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}