mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019416.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "17",
    "document_number": "60",
    "date": "09/24/2020",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 20-3061, Document 60, 09/24/2020, 2938278, Page17 of 58\n\ncivil case was on appeal and pending before this Court.3 Brown v. Maxwell, No. 18-2868. All Ms. Maxwell asks is for permission to share, under seal, the relevant facts with another Article III judge.\n\nThe government argues there is no jurisdiction for this Court to consider this appeal. Doc. 37. Quoting Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, the government says the collateral order doctrine must be interpreted “with the utmost strictness in criminal cases.” 489 U.S. 794, 799 (1989) (quoting Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259, 265 (1984)). Doc. 37 at 8. According to the government, in criminal cases the doctrine applies only to orders denying a bond, orders denying a motion to dismiss on double jeopardy ground, orders denying a motion to dismiss under the Speech and Debate Clause, and orders permitting the forced administration of antipsychotic drugs to render a defendant competent for trial. Doc. 37 at 9. The government is wrong.\n\nTo be sure, this appeal does not concern one of the four types of orders identified by the government. But that doesn’t mean the appeal isn’t proper under\n\n3 The Miami Herald filed its notice of appeal in Brown v. Maxwell, No. 18-2868 (2d Cir.), on September 26, 2018, and this Court issued its decision on July 3, 2019, Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir.2019).\n\n12\n\nDOJ-OGR-00019416",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 20-3061, Document 60, 09/24/2020, 2938278, Page17 of 58",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "civil case was on appeal and pending before this Court.3 Brown v. Maxwell, No. 18-2868. All Ms. Maxwell asks is for permission to share, under seal, the relevant facts with another Article III judge.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government argues there is no jurisdiction for this Court to consider this appeal. Doc. 37. Quoting Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, the government says the collateral order doctrine must be interpreted “with the utmost strictness in criminal cases.” 489 U.S. 794, 799 (1989) (quoting Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259, 265 (1984)). Doc. 37 at 8. According to the government, in criminal cases the doctrine applies only to orders denying a bond, orders denying a motion to dismiss on double jeopardy ground, orders denying a motion to dismiss under the Speech and Debate Clause, and orders permitting the forced administration of antipsychotic drugs to render a defendant competent for trial. Doc. 37 at 9. The government is wrong.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "To be sure, this appeal does not concern one of the four types of orders identified by the government. But that doesn’t mean the appeal isn’t proper under",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3 The Miami Herald filed its notice of appeal in Brown v. Maxwell, No. 18-2868 (2d Cir.), on September 26, 2018, and this Court issued its decision on July 3, 2019, Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir.2019).",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "12",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019416",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "The Miami Herald",
      "United States Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "September 26, 2018",
      "July 3, 2019",
      "09/24/2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 20-3061",
      "Document 60",
      "2938278",
      "No. 18-2868",
      "489 U.S. 794",
      "465 U.S. 259",
      "929 F.3d 41",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019416"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case Brown v. Maxwell. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}