DOJ-OGR-00006984.json 4.5 KB

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778
  1. {
  2. "document_metadata": {
  3. "page_number": "12",
  4. "document_number": "459",
  5. "date": "11/15/21",
  6. "document_type": "court transcript",
  7. "has_handwriting": false,
  8. "has_stamps": false
  9. },
  10. "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 12 of 43\nLalWmaxC\n1 chilling effect for any juror who, under oath, is going to have\n2 to answer very personal questions, let alone to have to answer\n3 those questions in a public forum with press being present and\n4 other members of the public viewing this from an overflow room.\n5 THE COURT: My view is we can deal with those\n6 situations kind of one at a time, depending on what emerges\n7 from the particular questionnaire that we're looking at at the\n8 time. As an example, I have conferred with Judge Donnelly, who\n9 went through similar voir dire questioning recently in the\n10 Eastern District, and there was public access to the individual\n11 questioning, and I think all of that was managed in a way that\n12 everybody felt comfortable with.\n13 I think we start with, as the law requires, as the\n14 First Amendment requires and case law requires, the presumption\n15 of public access. I will take into account, as need be, any\n16 specific requests for deviation in a tailored and narrow way to\n17 ensure juror candor, protection of privacy, and the like.\n18 That's my overall approach. I don't think we need to\n19 deal with it in any broader way now, but tell me if you\n20 disagree.\n21 MS. STERNHEIM: I do not agree. We do not need to\n22 deal with it now. I just wanted to express our concerns on\n23 that issue.\n24 THE COURT: OK. Anything else, Ms. Sternheim?\n25 MS. STERNHEIM: Yes. Just a moment, please?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
  11. "text_blocks": [
  12. {
  13. "type": "printed",
  14. "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 12 of 43",
  15. "position": "header"
  16. },
  17. {
  18. "type": "printed",
  19. "content": "LalWmaxC",
  20. "position": "margin"
  21. },
  22. {
  23. "type": "printed",
  24. "content": "1 chilling effect for any juror who, under oath, is going to have\n2 to answer very personal questions, let alone to have to answer\n3 those questions in a public forum with press being present and\n4 other members of the public viewing this from an overflow room.",
  25. "position": "main"
  26. },
  27. {
  28. "type": "printed",
  29. "content": "5 THE COURT: My view is we can deal with those\n6 situations kind of one at a time, depending on what emerges\n7 from the particular questionnaire that we're looking at at the\n8 time. As an example, I have conferred with Judge Donnelly, who\n9 went through similar voir dire questioning recently in the\n10 Eastern District, and there was public access to the individual\n11 questioning, and I think all of that was managed in a way that\n12 everybody felt comfortable with.",
  30. "position": "main"
  31. },
  32. {
  33. "type": "printed",
  34. "content": "13 I think we start with, as the law requires, as the\n14 First Amendment requires and case law requires, the presumption\n15 of public access. I will take into account, as need be, any\n16 specific requests for deviation in a tailored and narrow way to\n17 ensure juror candor, protection of privacy, and the like.",
  35. "position": "main"
  36. },
  37. {
  38. "type": "printed",
  39. "content": "18 That's my overall approach. I don't think we need to\n19 deal with it in any broader way now, but tell me if you\n20 disagree.",
  40. "position": "main"
  41. },
  42. {
  43. "type": "printed",
  44. "content": "21 MS. STERNHEIM: I do not agree. We do not need to\n22 deal with it now. I just wanted to express our concerns on\n23 that issue.",
  45. "position": "main"
  46. },
  47. {
  48. "type": "printed",
  49. "content": "24 THE COURT: OK. Anything else, Ms. Sternheim?\n25 MS. STERNHEIM: Yes. Just a moment, please?",
  50. "position": "main"
  51. },
  52. {
  53. "type": "printed",
  54. "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
  55. "position": "footer"
  56. }
  57. ],
  58. "entities": {
  59. "people": [
  60. "Judge Donnelly",
  61. "Ms. Sternheim"
  62. ],
  63. "organizations": [
  64. "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
  65. ],
  66. "locations": [
  67. "Eastern District"
  68. ],
  69. "dates": [
  70. "11/15/21"
  71. ],
  72. "reference_numbers": [
  73. "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
  74. "Document 459"
  75. ]
  76. },
  77. "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
  78. }