mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES006/DOJ-OGR-00015158.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "26 of 31",
    "document_number": "809",
    "date": "08/11/25",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 809 Filed 08/11/25 Page 26 of 31\n\n5. How Long Ago the Grand Jury Proceedings Took Place\n\nThe Second Circuit has instructed:\n\nThe timing of the request remains one of the most crucial elements. Time matters in several ways. First, if historical interest in a specific case has persisted over a number of years, that serves as an important indication that the public's interest in release of the information is substantial. (Hence the hypotheticals involving John Wilkes Booth and Aaron Burr.)17 Second, the passage of time erodes many of the justifications for continued secrecy. See Douglas Oil [Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 221, 222 (1979)] (noting that the interests in grand jury secrecy are reduced after the grand jury has ended its activities). Third, the passage of time eventually, and inevitably, brings about the death of the principal parties involved in the investigations, as well as that of their immediate families. And the continued existence and vulnerability of such parties is, of itself, a factor that a court should consider.\n\nId. at 107 (footnote added).\n\nThis factor presents countervailing considerations. On the one hand, 20–30 years have passed since Maxwell (and Epstein) committed the crimes for which they were charged. (The conduct for which Maxwell was convicted spanned 1994 to 2004.)\n\nOn the other hand, the grand juries that indicted Maxwell met approximately five years ago. Maxwell's trial occurred under four years ago. Her conviction remains on direct appeal. And numerous victims of Epstein and Maxwell are still alive. These circumstances starkly contrast with most precedents in this line of cases, which involved testimony decades earlier. See, e.g., id. at 100 (1948 testimony); In re National Security Archive, 104 F. Supp. 3d at 626 (1950 testimony); In re AHA, 49 F. Supp. 2d at 277–78 (1947–1950 testimony); see also note 12, supra (citing similar D.D.C. cases). But see In re Biaggi, 478 F.2d at 492–93 (testimony less than two years earlier).\n\n17 The Circuit, in illustrating earlier in its opinion why historical or public interest considerations could justify the release of grand jury information, stated: “To the extent that the John Wilkes Booth or Aaron Burr conspiracies, for example, led to grand jury investigations, historical interest might by now overwhelm any continued need for secrecy.” Id. at 105.\n\n26\n\nDOJ-OGR-00015158",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 809 Filed 08/11/25 Page 26 of 31",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "5. How Long Ago the Grand Jury Proceedings Took Place",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Second Circuit has instructed:\n\nThe timing of the request remains one of the most crucial elements. Time matters in several ways. First, if historical interest in a specific case has persisted over a number of years, that serves as an important indication that the public's interest in release of the information is substantial. (Hence the hypotheticals involving John Wilkes Booth and Aaron Burr.)17 Second, the passage of time erodes many of the justifications for continued secrecy. See Douglas Oil [Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 221, 222 (1979)] (noting that the interests in grand jury secrecy are reduced after the grand jury has ended its activities). Third, the passage of time eventually, and inevitably, brings about the death of the principal parties involved in the investigations, as well as that of their immediate families. And the continued existence and vulnerability of such parties is, of itself, a factor that a court should consider.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Id. at 107 (footnote added).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "This factor presents countervailing considerations. On the one hand, 20–30 years have passed since Maxwell (and Epstein) committed the crimes for which they were charged. (The conduct for which Maxwell was convicted spanned 1994 to 2004.)",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "On the other hand, the grand juries that indicted Maxwell met approximately five years ago. Maxwell's trial occurred under four years ago. Her conviction remains on direct appeal. And numerous victims of Epstein and Maxwell are still alive. These circumstances starkly contrast with most precedents in this line of cases, which involved testimony decades earlier. See, e.g., id. at 100 (1948 testimony); In re National Security Archive, 104 F. Supp. 3d at 626 (1950 testimony); In re AHA, 49 F. Supp. 2d at 277–78 (1947–1950 testimony); see also note 12, supra (citing similar D.D.C. cases). But see In re Biaggi, 478 F.2d at 492–93 (testimony less than two years earlier).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "17 The Circuit, in illustrating earlier in its opinion why historical or public interest considerations could justify the release of grand jury information, stated: “To the extent that the John Wilkes Booth or Aaron Burr conspiracies, for example, led to grand jury investigations, historical interest might by now overwhelm any continued need for secrecy.” Id. at 105.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "26",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00015158",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "John Wilkes Booth",
      "Aaron Burr",
      "Maxwell",
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Second Circuit",
      "D.D.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/11/25",
      "1994",
      "2004",
      "1948",
      "1950",
      "1947"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "809",
      "DOJ-OGR-00015158"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Maxwell and Epstein. The text discusses the timing of grand jury proceedings and the release of grand jury information. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}