mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019622.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "15",
    "document_number": "82",
    "date": "10/02/2020",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 20-3061, Document 82, 10/02/2020, 2944267, Page15 of 37\n9\nfollowing final judgment on the merits. In a criminal case[,] the rule prohibits appellate review until conviction and imposition of sentence.\" Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259, 263 (1984); accord United States v. Aliotta, 199 F.3d 78, 81 (2d Cir. 1999). As the Supreme Court has \"long held,\" the \"policy of Congress embodied in this statute is inimical to piecemeal appellate review of trial court decisions which do not terminate the litigation, and ... this policy is at its strongest in the field of criminal law.\" United States v. Hollywood Motor Car Co., 458 U.S. 263, 265 (1982); see also Flanagan, 465 U.S. at 270 (noting \"overriding policies against interlocutory review in criminal cases\" and that \"exceptions to the final judgment rule in criminal cases are rare\"); United States v. Culbertson, 598 F.3d 40, 46 (2d Cir. 2010) (recognizing that \"undue litigiousness and leaden-footed administration of justice, the common consequences of piecemeal appellate review, are particularly damaging to the conduct of criminal cases\").\nThere is a limited exception to this rule that permits immediate appeal from certain collateral orders. See Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 467-68 (1978) (citing Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949)). To fall within the \"small class\" of decisions that constitute immediately appealable collateral orders, the decision must \"(1) conclusively determine the disputed question, (2) resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and (3) be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.\" Van Cauwenberghe, 486 U.S. at 522.\nDOJ-OGR-00019622",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 20-3061, Document 82, 10/02/2020, 2944267, Page15 of 37",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "9\nfollowing final judgment on the merits. In a criminal case[,] the rule prohibits appellate review until conviction and imposition of sentence.\" Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259, 263 (1984); accord United States v. Aliotta, 199 F.3d 78, 81 (2d Cir. 1999). As the Supreme Court has \"long held,\" the \"policy of Congress embodied in this statute is inimical to piecemeal appellate review of trial court decisions which do not terminate the litigation, and ... this policy is at its strongest in the field of criminal law.\" United States v. Hollywood Motor Car Co., 458 U.S. 263, 265 (1982); see also Flanagan, 465 U.S. at 270 (noting \"overriding policies against interlocutory review in criminal cases\" and that \"exceptions to the final judgment rule in criminal cases are rare\"); United States v. Culbertson, 598 F.3d 40, 46 (2d Cir. 2010) (recognizing that \"undue litigiousness and leaden-footed administration of justice, the common consequences of piecemeal appellate review, are particularly damaging to the conduct of criminal cases\").\nThere is a limited exception to this rule that permits immediate appeal from certain collateral orders. See Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 467-68 (1978) (citing Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949)). To fall within the \"small class\" of decisions that constitute immediately appealable collateral orders, the decision must \"(1) conclusively determine the disputed question, (2) resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and (3) be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.\" Van Cauwenberghe, 486 U.S. at 522.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019622",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "United States Supreme Court",
      "Second Circuit Court of Appeals"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "10/02/2020",
      "1984",
      "1999",
      "1982",
      "2010",
      "1978",
      "1949"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "20-3061",
      "82",
      "2944267",
      "465 U.S. 259",
      "199 F.3d 78",
      "458 U.S. 263",
      "598 F.3d 40",
      "437 U.S. 463",
      "337 U.S. 541",
      "486 U.S.",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019622"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing, likely from a federal court, discussing the final judgment rule and its exceptions in the context of criminal cases. The text is dense and includes numerous citations to case law. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}