mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00000645.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "7",
    "document_number": "53",
    "date": "09/03/19",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 53 Filed 09/03/19 Page 7 of 86\nJ8RsEPS1\n\ncourt must still make its own independent determination. A conclusory statement from the government that dismissal is appropriate does not satisfy the court's obligations.\n\nIt is also, in my view, required that the court consider the views of the victims in the case at the hearing and before deciding whether to grant the motion. This is being done here both as a matter of law and as a measure of respect that we have for the victims' difficult decisions to come forward in this matter.\n\nIn a case called United States v. Heaton, H-e-a-t-o-n-, the government filed a Rule 48 motion for leave to dismiss a charge against a defendant who allegedly committed a sexual offense against a young victim. Although I should point out, very importantly, that that defendant was still alive, which distinguishes it from our case.\n\nNevertheless, I think it is irrelevant because in evaluating the Rule 48 motion, then district Judge Paul G. Cassell -- who is now a law professor at the University of Utah and is regarded to be a noted expert in victims' rights -- concluded that under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, victims have broad rights that extend to a court's decision whether to grant a government motion to dismiss under Rule 48.\n\nI completely share that viewpoint in these circumstances, even though the facts of our case, as I said, are somewhat different from those in Heaton. I believe it is\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n\nDOJ-OGR-00000645",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 53 Filed 09/03/19 Page 7 of 86",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "J8RsEPS1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "court must still make its own independent determination. A conclusory statement from the government that dismissal is appropriate does not satisfy the court's obligations.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "It is also, in my view, required that the court consider the views of the victims in the case at the hearing and before deciding whether to grant the motion. This is being done here both as a matter of law and as a measure of respect that we have for the victims' difficult decisions to come forward in this matter.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In a case called United States v. Heaton, H-e-a-t-o-n-, the government filed a Rule 48 motion for leave to dismiss a charge against a defendant who allegedly committed a sexual offense against a young victim. Although I should point out, very importantly, that that defendant was still alive, which distinguishes it from our case.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Nevertheless, I think it is irrelevant because in evaluating the Rule 48 motion, then district Judge Paul G. Cassell -- who is now a law professor at the University of Utah and is regarded to be a noted expert in victims' rights -- concluded that under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, victims have broad rights that extend to a court's decision whether to grant a government motion to dismiss under Rule 48.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I completely share that viewpoint in these circumstances, even though the facts of our case, as I said, are somewhat different from those in Heaton. I believe it is",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00000645",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Paul G. Cassell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Southern District Reporters, P.C.",
      "University of Utah"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Utah"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "09/03/19"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:19-cr-00490-RMB",
      "53",
      "DOJ-OGR-00000645"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document. The text is typed, and there are no visible handwritten notes or stamps. The document includes a header with case information and a footer with the name and contact information of the reporting agency."
}