mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019381.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "15",
    "document_number": "38",
    "date": "09/16/2020",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 20-3061, Document 38, 09/16/2020, 2932233, Page15 of 23\n\nappeal from unsealing of competency evaluation because \"any alleged incursions on criminal defendants' rights to privacy and a fair trial do not render the unsealing order effectively unreviewable on appeal\"); Hitchcock, 992 F.2d at 238-39 (district court's refusal to seal documents not immediately appealable because \"[r]eversal after trial, if it is warranted, will adequately protect . . . interest[s]\" asserted by defendant); cf. Mohawk Indus., 558 U.S. at 109 (holding that orders to disclose privileged information are not immediately appealable even though they \"intrude[] on the confidentiality of attorney-client communications\").\n\n20. To the extent Maxwell complains that unsealing filings in a civil case may result in unfair pretrial publicity in her criminal case, such a concern is not an issue that is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. Indeed, that very issue has been reviewed by this Court in multiple cases on post-judgment appeal. See, e.g., United States v. Sabhnani, 599 F.3d 215, 232-34 (2d Cir. 2010) (evaluating on post-judgment appeal whether publicity biased the venire); United States v. Elfgeeh, 515 F.3d 100, 128-31 (2d Cir. 2008) (evaluating on post-judgment appeal whether publicity biased trial jurors). Should the Court determine that the jury at Maxwell's trial was biased based on disclosure of material in a civil case, and that such material would not have been unsealed had Judge Nathan permitted modification of the Protective Order, then vacatur of the defendant's conviction - if warranted - will adequately vindicate the defendant's\n\n15\n\nDOJ-OGR-00019381",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 20-3061, Document 38, 09/16/2020, 2932233, Page15 of 23",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "appeal from unsealing of competency evaluation because \"any alleged incursions on criminal defendants' rights to privacy and a fair trial do not render the unsealing order effectively unreviewable on appeal\"); Hitchcock, 992 F.2d at 238-39 (district court's refusal to seal documents not immediately appealable because \"[r]eversal after trial, if it is warranted, will adequately protect . . . interest[s]\" asserted by defendant); cf. Mohawk Indus., 558 U.S. at 109 (holding that orders to disclose privileged information are not immediately appealable even though they \"intrude[] on the confidentiality of attorney-client communications\").",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "20. To the extent Maxwell complains that unsealing filings in a civil case may result in unfair pretrial publicity in her criminal case, such a concern is not an issue that is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. Indeed, that very issue has been reviewed by this Court in multiple cases on post-judgment appeal. See, e.g., United States v. Sabhnani, 599 F.3d 215, 232-34 (2d Cir. 2010) (evaluating on post-judgment appeal whether publicity biased the venire); United States v. Elfgeeh, 515 F.3d 100, 128-31 (2d Cir. 2008) (evaluating on post-judgment appeal whether publicity biased trial jurors). Should the Court determine that the jury at Maxwell's trial was biased based on disclosure of material in a civil case, and that such material would not have been unsealed had Judge Nathan permitted modification of the Protective Order, then vacatur of the defendant's conviction - if warranted - will adequately vindicate the defendant's",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "15",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019381",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Nathan"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court",
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "09/16/2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "20-3061",
      "38",
      "2932233",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019381"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a case involving Maxwell. The text discusses the unsealing of documents and the potential impact on the defendant's right to a fair trial. The document includes citations to various court cases and legal precedents."
}