mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00005771.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "6",
    "document_number": "395",
    "date": "10/29/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 395 Filed 10/29/21 Page 6 of 9\nCourts across the country agree. E.g., Allen v. State, 644 A.2d 982, 983 n.1 (Del. 1994) (“We recognize . . . that when, as here, consent is the sole defense in a rape case, the use of the term ‘victim’ by a prosecutor at trial is improper and to be avoided.”); Jackson, 600 A.2d at 24 (“We agree with defendant that the word ‘victim’ should not be used in a case where the commission of a crime is in dispute.”); State v. Nomura, 903 P.2d 718, 721 (Haw. App. Ct. 1995) (“[T]he term ‘victim’ is conclusive in nature and connotes a predetermination that the person referred to had in fact been wronged.”); State v. Wright, 2003 WL 21509033, at *2 (Ohio App. Ct. July 2, 2003) (“[T]he trial court should refrain from using the term ‘victim,’ as it suggests a bias against the defendant before the State has proven a ‘victim’ truly exists.”); State v. Wigg, 889 A.2d 233, 236 (Vt. 2005) (“[W]here the commission of a crime is in dispute and the core issue is one of the complainant’s credibility, it is error for a trial court to permit a police detective to refer to the complainant as the ‘victim.’”); see also State v. Albino, 24 A.3d 602, 617 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011) (“When there is no doubt that a homicide occurred and that the defendant was the person who caused it to occur, and the only question for the jury is whether the homicide was justified, . . . repeated reference to the ‘victim,’ . . . amounts to an opinion on the ultimate issue of the case.”).\nProhibiting the government from referring to the accusers as “victims” or “minor victims” is particularly appropriate given the special role prosecutors play. “The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all.” Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935). “The responsibility of a public prosecutor [thus] differs from that of the usual advocate; his duty is to seek justice, not merely to convict.” Young v. United States, 481 U.S. 787, 803 (1987).\n3\nDOJ-OGR-00005771",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 395 Filed 10/29/21 Page 6 of 9",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Courts across the country agree. E.g., Allen v. State, 644 A.2d 982, 983 n.1 (Del. 1994) (“We recognize . . . that when, as here, consent is the sole defense in a rape case, the use of the term ‘victim’ by a prosecutor at trial is improper and to be avoided.”); Jackson, 600 A.2d at 24 (“We agree with defendant that the word ‘victim’ should not be used in a case where the commission of a crime is in dispute.”); State v. Nomura, 903 P.2d 718, 721 (Haw. App. Ct. 1995) (“[T]he term ‘victim’ is conclusive in nature and connotes a predetermination that the person referred to had in fact been wronged.”); State v. Wright, 2003 WL 21509033, at *2 (Ohio App. Ct. July 2, 2003) (“[T]he trial court should refrain from using the term ‘victim,’ as it suggests a bias against the defendant before the State has proven a ‘victim’ truly exists.”); State v. Wigg, 889 A.2d 233, 236 (Vt. 2005) (“[W]here the commission of a crime is in dispute and the core issue is one of the complainant’s credibility, it is error for a trial court to permit a police detective to refer to the complainant as the ‘victim.’”); see also State v. Albino, 24 A.3d 602, 617 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011) (“When there is no doubt that a homicide occurred and that the defendant was the person who caused it to occur, and the only question for the jury is whether the homicide was justified, . . . repeated reference to the ‘victim,’ . . . amounts to an opinion on the ultimate issue of the case.”).",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Prohibiting the government from referring to the accusers as “victims” or “minor victims” is particularly appropriate given the special role prosecutors play. “The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all.” Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935). “The responsibility of a public prosecutor [thus] differs from that of the usual advocate; his duty is to seek justice, not merely to convict.” Young v. United States, 481 U.S. 787, 803 (1987).",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005771",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Allen",
      "Jackson",
      "Nomura",
      "Wright",
      "Wigg",
      "Albino",
      "Berger",
      "Young"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States Attorney"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Delaware",
      "Hawaii",
      "Ohio",
      "Vermont",
      "Connecticut"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "1994",
      "1995",
      "2003",
      "2005",
      "2011",
      "1935",
      "1987",
      "10/29/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 395",
      "644 A.2d 982",
      "600 A.2d",
      "903 P.2d 718",
      "2003 WL 21509033",
      "889 A.2d 233",
      "24 A.3d 602",
      "295 U.S. 78",
      "481 U.S. 787",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005771"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing discussing the use of the term 'victim' in legal proceedings. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 6 of 9."
}