mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00004081.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "1",
    "document_number": "266",
    "date": "05/03/21",
    "document_type": "Court Order",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": true
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 266 Filed 05/03/21 Page 1 of 3\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\nUnited States of America,\n\n-v-\n\nGhislaine Maxwell,\nDefendant.\n\n20-CR-330 (AJN)\n\nORDER\n\nALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:\n\nLast summer, the Court scheduled trial in this matter to commence on July 12, 2021. On March 29, 2021, three and a half months before trial, the Government filed an S2 Superseding Indictment. As a result of the late filing of the S2, counsel for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell request a continuance of the trial date until either fall 2021 or January 2022.1 The Government opposes any continuance, but requests that if one is granted it be until March of 2022. Having carefully considered the parties' respective positions, the Court GRANTS Maxwell's request for a short continuance until the fall of 2021 to allow the defense to prepare for the additional charges brought in the S2 indictment. The Court rejects Maxwell's alternative request to continue the trial date until January of 2022 and the Government's alternative proposal that the Court adjourn trial until March of 2022.\n\nThe Court bases its decision on a number of factors. First, the filing of the S2 indictment has added a significant burden to the defense's preparation for trial. The new indictment alleges\n\n1 The alternative request by Maxwell resulted from a conflict among lawyers involved in both this case and a criminal matter before Judge Furman, which is discussed in defense counsel's letter. Dkt. No. 246 at 4. The Court has been informed that Judge Furman has adjourned the trial date with respect to two defendants. The Court presumes that this eliminates the September through December conflict for one of Maxwell's defense counsel. It presumably does not eliminate the conflict for one of the AUSAs involved in both cases. Dkt. No. 235 at 10 n.5.\n\nDOJ-OGR-00004081",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 266 Filed 05/03/21 Page 1 of 3",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "United States of America, -v- Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "20-CR-330 (AJN) ORDER",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: ...",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 The alternative request by Maxwell resulted from a conflict among lawyers involved in both this case and a criminal matter before Judge Furman, which is discussed in defense counsel's letter. Dkt. No. 246 at 4. The Court has been informed that Judge Furman has adjourned the trial date with respect to two defendants. The Court presumes that this eliminates the September through December conflict for one of Maxwell's defense counsel. It presumably does not eliminate the conflict for one of the AUSAs involved in both cases. Dkt. No. 235 at 10 n.5.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "stamp",
      "content": "USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 5/3/21",
      "position": "margin"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004081",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Judge Furman"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States District Court",
      "Southern District of New York"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "July 12, 2021",
      "March 29, 2021",
      "fall 2021",
      "January 2022",
      "March 2022",
      "September",
      "December",
      "05/03/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 266",
      "20-CR-330 (AJN)",
      "Dkt. No. 246",
      "Dkt. No. 235"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document is a court order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. It appears to be a formal, typed document with no handwritten text. The stamp in the top-right corner indicates that it was electronically filed."
}