mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019848.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "20",
    "document_number": "39-1",
    "date": "04/01/2021",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 21-58, Document 39-1, 04/01/2021, 3068530, Page20 of 31\nthe files around into a different order. She is stuck looking at one page at a time over a screen three feet away without a lawyer in the same room. These are textbook untenable conditions. Stephens, 447 F. Supp. 3d at 67 (explaining the importance of legal visits and ordering bail during pandemic); Weigand, 2020 WL 5887602, at *2 (ordering bail during pandemic because defendant needed ability to review the discovery in complex, document-heavy case). This is no way to prepare for a trial where the government will be asking for a sentence that will imprison her for the rest of her life. Ex.A\nThis Court has recognized that, after a relatively short time, pretrial detention turns into prohibited, unconstitutional punishment. United States v. Jackson, 823 F.2d 4, 7 (2d Cir. 1987) (“grave due process concerns” are implicated by a seven-month period of pretrial detention); United States v. Melendez-Carrions, 790 F.2d 984, 1008 (2d Cir. 1986) (Feinberg, J. concurring) (“[G]eneral requirements of due process compel us to draw the line [of permissible pretrial detention] well short of [] eight months.”). Under the current conditions, it can hardly be disputed that Ms. Maxwell is being punished, which in itself\n18\nDOJ-OGR-00019848",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 21-58, Document 39-1, 04/01/2021, 3068530, Page20 of 31",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "the files around into a different order. She is stuck looking at one page at a time over a screen three feet away without a lawyer in the same room. These are textbook untenable conditions. Stephens, 447 F. Supp. 3d at 67 (explaining the importance of legal visits and ordering bail during pandemic); Weigand, 2020 WL 5887602, at *2 (ordering bail during pandemic because defendant needed ability to review the discovery in complex, document-heavy case). This is no way to prepare for a trial where the government will be asking for a sentence that will imprison her for the rest of her life. Ex.A\nThis Court has recognized that, after a relatively short time, pretrial detention turns into prohibited, unconstitutional punishment. United States v. Jackson, 823 F.2d 4, 7 (2d Cir. 1987) (“grave due process concerns” are implicated by a seven-month period of pretrial detention); United States v. Melendez-Carrions, 790 F.2d 984, 1008 (2d Cir. 1986) (Feinberg, J. concurring) (“[G]eneral requirements of due process compel us to draw the line [of permissible pretrial detention] well short of [] eight months.”). Under the current conditions, it can hardly be disputed that Ms. Maxwell is being punished, which in itself",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "18",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019848",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Jackson",
      "Melendez-Carrions",
      "Feinberg"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/01/2021",
      "1987",
      "1986"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 21-58",
      "Document 39-1",
      "3068530",
      "447 F. Supp. 3d",
      "2020 WL 5887602",
      "823 F.2d 4",
      "790 F.2d 984",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019848"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell, discussing the conditions of her pretrial detention and referencing relevant legal precedents."
}