mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES006/DOJ-OGR-00015144.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "12",
    "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 12 of 31\n\nId. (quoting United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 681-82 n.2 (1958)) (alterations in original); see also In re Biaggi, 478 F.2d at 491-92.\n\nThe rule of secrecy is today embodied in Rule 6(e), which bars disclosure of grand jury matters by persons privy to them: grand jurors, attorneys for the Government, court reporters, operators of recording devices, and interpreters. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2)(B). Rule 6(e)(3) defines narrow exceptions. It authorizes disclosures:\n\n- to other Government personnel assisting in the enforcement of federal criminal law, id. at 6(e)(3)(A)-(B);\n- to another federal grand jury, id. at 6(e)(3)(C);\n- to law enforcement or national security officials, where the disclosures involve foreign-intelligence or counter-intelligence information and assist in the performance of official duties, id. at 6(e)(3)(D); and\n- to persons as authorized by a court in the district where the grand jury convened, id. at 6(e)(3)(E)-(F), provided the disclosure is: \"preliminar[y] to or in connection with a judicial proceeding,\" id. at 6(e)(3)(E)(i); \"at the request of a defendant who shows that a ground may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury,\" id. at 6(e)(3)(E)(ii); \"at the request of the government, when sought by a foreign court or prosecutor for use in an official criminal investigation,\" id. at 6(e)(3)(E)(iii); \"at the request of the government if it shows that the matter may disclose a violation of State, Indian tribal, or foreign criminal law,\" provided that the disclosure is to an appropriate such government official for the purpose of enforcing that law, id. at 6(e)(3)(E)(iv); or \"at the request of the government if it shows that the matter may disclose a violation of military criminal law under the Uniform Code of Military Justice,\" provided that the disclosure is to an appropriate military official for the purpose of enforcing that law, id. at 6(e)(3)(E)(v).\n\nB. The \"Special Circumstances\" Doctrine\n\nThe Second Circuit has recognized that in \"special circumstances,\" the disclosure of grand jury materials may be appropriate even where it is not authorized by Rule 6(e). The Second Circuit developed this doctrine in three cases where disclosure was sought of grand jury matters claimed to be of unusual historical or public interest. See In re Biaggi, 478 F.2d at 492-93; In re Craig, 131 F.3d at 101-02; Laws.' Comm. for 9/11 Inquiry, Inc. v. Garland, 43 F.4th\n\n12\n\nDOJ-OGR-00015144",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 809 Filed 08/11/25 Page 12 of 31",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Id. (quoting United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 681-82 n.2 (1958)) (alterations in original); see also In re Biaggi, 478 F.2d at 491-92.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The rule of secrecy is today embodied in Rule 6(e), which bars disclosure of grand jury matters by persons privy to them: grand jurors, attorneys for the Government, court reporters, operators of recording devices, and interpreters. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2)(B). Rule 6(e)(3) defines narrow exceptions. It authorizes disclosures:",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "- to other Government personnel assisting in the enforcement of federal criminal law, id. at 6(e)(3)(A)-(B);\n- to another federal grand jury, id. at 6(e)(3)(C);\n- to law enforcement or national security officials, where the disclosures involve foreign-intelligence or counter-intelligence information and assist in the performance of official duties, id. at 6(e)(3)(D); and\n- to persons as authorized by a court in the district where the grand jury convened, id. at 6(e)(3)(E)-(F), provided the disclosure is: \"preliminar[y] to or in connection with a judicial proceeding,\" id. at 6(e)(3)(E)(i); \"at the request of a defendant who shows that a ground may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury,\" id. at 6(e)(3)(E)(ii); \"at the request of the government, when sought by a foreign court or prosecutor for use in an official criminal investigation,\" id. at 6(e)(3)(E)(iii); \"at the request of the government if it shows that the matter may disclose a violation of State, Indian tribal, or foreign criminal law,\" provided that the disclosure is to an appropriate such government official for the purpose of enforcing that law, id. at 6(e)(3)(E)(iv); or \"at the request of the government if it shows that the matter may disclose a violation of military criminal law under the Uniform Code of Military Justice,\" provided that the disclosure is to an appropriate military official for the purpose of enforcing that law, id. at 6(e)(3)(E)(v).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. The \"Special Circumstances\" Doctrine",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Second Circuit has recognized that in \"special circumstances,\" the disclosure of grand jury materials may be appropriate even where it is not authorized by Rule 6(e). The Second Circuit developed this doctrine in three cases where disclosure was sought of grand jury matters claimed to be of unusual historical or public interest. See In re Biaggi, 478 F.2d at 492-93; In re Craig, 131 F.3d at 101-02; Laws.' Comm. for 9/11 Inquiry, Inc. v. Garland, 43 F.4th",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "12",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00015144",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "United States",
      "Government",
      "Second Circuit",
      "Laws.' Comm. for 9/11 Inquiry, Inc."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "State",
      "India"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "08/11/25",
      "1958"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "809",
      "DOJ-OGR-00015144"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a grand jury investigation. The text is printed and there are no visible handwritten notes or stamps. The document is well-formatted and easy to read."
}