mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008387.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "1",
    "document_number": "548",
    "date": "12/15/21",
    "document_type": "MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": true
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 548 Filed 12/15/21 Page 1 of 6\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\nUnited States of America,\n-v-\nGhislaine Maxwell,\nDefendant.\n20-CR-330 (AJN)\nMEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER\nALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:\nThe Defense on December 12, 2021, moved to permit three anticipated witnesses to testify under a pseudonym or their first names only. The Government filed a letter opposing this request on December 14, 2021. The Defense's primary contention is that some form of anonymity for its witnesses is justified by the same reasons that the Court permitted three alleged victims and two related government witnesses to testify under pseudonyms. The Court disagrees with this basic premise and denies the Defense's motion.\n\"By convention, most witness examinations begin with an introduction of the witness to the fact finder, including the witness's name, education, residence, work history, family etc. Such background gives the fact finder some insight into who the witness is while also serving to steady the witness's nerves.\" 30 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure, Evidence § 6408 (2d ed. 2021); see Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687, 691-92 (1931). That presumption of identification is based, in part, on the \"firmly established\" principle that \"the press and general public have a constitutional right of access to criminal trials . . . embodied in the First Amendment.\" Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Ct. for Norfolk Cnty., 457 U.S. 596, 603 (1982). \"There are rare instances, however, when it may be appropriate . . . to preclude . . . inquiring into the witness's identity and background.\" Wright & Miller, supra, § 6408.\n1\nDOJ-OGR-00008387",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 548 Filed 12/15/21 Page 1 of 6",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "United States of America,\n-v-\nGhislaine Maxwell,\nDefendant.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "stamp",
      "content": "USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: _____ DATE FILED: 12/15/21",
      "position": "margin"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "20-CR-330 (AJN)\nMEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Defense on December 12, 2021, moved to permit three anticipated witnesses to testify under a pseudonym or their first names only. The Government filed a letter opposing this request on December 14, 2021. The Defense's primary contention is that some form of anonymity for its witnesses is justified by the same reasons that the Court permitted three alleged victims and two related government witnesses to testify under pseudonyms. The Court disagrees with this basic premise and denies the Defense's motion.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "\"By convention, most witness examinations begin with an introduction of the witness to the fact finder, including the witness's name, education, residence, work history, family etc. Such background gives the fact finder some insight into who the witness is while also serving to steady the witness's nerves.\" 30 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure, Evidence § 6408 (2d ed. 2021); see Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687, 691-92 (1931). That presumption of identification is based, in part, on the \"firmly established\" principle that \"the press and general public have a constitutional right of access to criminal trials . . . embodied in the First Amendment.\" Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Ct. for Norfolk Cnty., 457 U.S. 596, 603 (1982). \"There are rare instances, however, when it may be appropriate . . . to preclude . . . inquiring into the witness's identity and background.\" Wright & Miller, supra, § 6408.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008387",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Alison J. Nathan"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States of America",
      "United States District Court",
      "Globe Newspaper Co."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "Norfolk Cnty."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "December 12, 2021",
      "December 14, 2021",
      "12/15/21",
      "1931",
      "1982"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 548",
      "20-CR-330 (AJN)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008387"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a stamp indicating electronic filing. The text is clear and legible, with no apparent redactions or damage."
}