mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00004878.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "66",
    "document_number": "310-1",
    "date": "07/02/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 66 of 80\n\nAmendment's self-incrimination clause \"is not only a protection against conviction and prosecution but a safeguard of conscience and human dignity and freedom of expression as well.\" Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422, 445 (1956) (Douglas, J., dissenting).\n\nWe recently discussed the centrality of the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination in the American concept of ordered liberty in Commonwealth v. Taylor, 230 A.3d 1050 (Pa. 2020). There, we noted that certain rights, such as those enshrined in the Fifth Amendment, are among those privileges \"whose exercise a State may not condition by the exaction of a price.\" Id. at 1064 (quoting Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493, 500 (1967)). To ensure that these fundamental freedoms are \"scrupulously observed,\" we emphasized that \"it is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon,\" id. at 1063-64 (quoting Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635 (1886)), and that \"the Fifth Amendment is to be 'broad[ly] constru[ed] in favor of the right which it was intended to secure.\" Id. at 1064 (quoting Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547, 562 (1892), Boyd, 116 U.S. at 635, and Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155, 162 (1955)). We stressed that \"[t]he value of constitutional privileges is largely destroyed if persons can be penalized for relying on them.\" Id. at 1064 (quoting Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391, 425 (1957) (Black, J., concurring)).26\n\nThe right against compulsory self-incrimination accompanies a person wherever he goes, no matter the legal proceeding in which he participates, unless and until \"the potential exposure to criminal punishment no longer exists.\" Taylor, 230 A.3d at 1065. It\n\n26 To that end, the application of the privilege against self-incrimination is not limited to criminal matters. Its availability \"does not turn upon the type of proceeding in which its protection is invoked, but upon the nature of the statement or admission and the exposure which it invites.\" Id. (quoting Application of Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 49 (1967)). \"The privilege may, for example, be claimed in a civil or administrative proceeding, if the statement is or may be inculpatory.\" Gault, 387 U.S. at 49.\n\n[J-100-2020] - 65\nDOJ-OGR-00004878",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 66 of 80",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Amendment's self-incrimination clause \"is not only a protection against conviction and prosecution but a safeguard of conscience and human dignity and freedom of expression as well.\" Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422, 445 (1956) (Douglas, J., dissenting).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "We recently discussed the centrality of the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination in the American concept of ordered liberty in Commonwealth v. Taylor, 230 A.3d 1050 (Pa. 2020). There, we noted that certain rights, such as those enshrined in the Fifth Amendment, are among those privileges \"whose exercise a State may not condition by the exaction of a price.\" Id. at 1064 (quoting Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493, 500 (1967)). To ensure that these fundamental freedoms are \"scrupulously observed,\" we emphasized that \"it is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon,\" id. at 1063-64 (quoting Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635 (1886)), and that \"the Fifth Amendment is to be 'broad[ly] constru[ed] in favor of the right which it was intended to secure.\" Id. at 1064 (quoting Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547, 562 (1892), Boyd, 116 U.S. at 635, and Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155, 162 (1955)). We stressed that \"[t]he value of constitutional privileges is largely destroyed if persons can be penalized for relying on them.\" Id. at 1064 (quoting Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391, 425 (1957) (Black, J., concurring)).26",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The right against compulsory self-incrimination accompanies a person wherever he goes, no matter the legal proceeding in which he participates, unless and until \"the potential exposure to criminal punishment no longer exists.\" Taylor, 230 A.3d at 1065. It",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "26 To that end, the application of the privilege against self-incrimination is not limited to criminal matters. Its availability \"does not turn upon the type of proceeding in which its protection is invoked, but upon the nature of the statement or admission and the exposure which it invites.\" Id. (quoting Application of Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 49 (1967)). \"The privilege may, for example, be claimed in a civil or administrative proceeding, if the statement is or may be inculpatory.\" Gault, 387 U.S. at 49.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "[J-100-2020] - 65",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004878",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Douglas",
      "Black"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New Jersey",
      "Pennsylvania"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "1956",
      "2020",
      "1967",
      "1886",
      "1892",
      "1955",
      "1957",
      "07/02/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "310-1",
      "J-100-2020",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004878"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text discusses the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and cites various court cases. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}