DOJ-OGR-00007057.json 4.0 KB

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152
  1. {
  2. "document_metadata": {
  3. "page_number": "6",
  4. "document_number": "465",
  5. "date": "11/15/21",
  6. "document_type": "court document",
  7. "has_handwriting": false,
  8. "has_stamps": false
  9. },
  10. "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 6 of 127 6 LB1TMAX1 pursuant to the Crime Victims Rights Act, 18 USC Section 3771, to permit certain witnesses and certain non-testifying witnesses to be referred to by pseudonyms. And there is also the issue of redacting related exhibits that contain the names or specifically identifying information. Specifically, the government requests that eight individuals be referred to by pseudonyms or their first name. The defense is already aware of the identities of all of these individuals, and as the government proposes it, the jury will also be aware of the individuals' real identities. The request only implicates how those individuals are referred to in open court. This is well-tread territory, and I will grant the request for the following reasons: The burden to justify this type of request, of course, starts with the government. It \"must provide a reason for the limitation.\" United States v. Marcus, which is 2007 WL 330388 at *1, an Eastern District decision citing United States v. Marti, 421 F.2d 1283 (2d Cir. 1970). I agree with the government that limiting disclosure here would protect the alleged victims from potential harassment from the media and others, undue embarrassment and other adverse consequences. The Court has an obligation under the Crime Victims Rights Act to take certain measures at trial to protect the dignity and privacy of alleged victims. 18 USC SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00007057",
  11. "text_blocks": [
  12. {
  13. "type": "printed",
  14. "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 6 of 127 6",
  15. "position": "header"
  16. },
  17. {
  18. "type": "printed",
  19. "content": "LB1TMAX1 pursuant to the Crime Victims Rights Act, 18 USC Section 3771, to permit certain witnesses and certain non-testifying witnesses to be referred to by pseudonyms. And there is also the issue of redacting related exhibits that contain the names or specifically identifying information. Specifically, the government requests that eight individuals be referred to by pseudonyms or their first name. The defense is already aware of the identities of all of these individuals, and as the government proposes it, the jury will also be aware of the individuals' real identities. The request only implicates how those individuals are referred to in open court. This is well-tread territory, and I will grant the request for the following reasons: The burden to justify this type of request, of course, starts with the government. It \"must provide a reason for the limitation.\" United States v. Marcus, which is 2007 WL 330388 at *1, an Eastern District decision citing United States v. Marti, 421 F.2d 1283 (2d Cir. 1970). I agree with the government that limiting disclosure here would protect the alleged victims from potential harassment from the media and others, undue embarrassment and other adverse consequences. The Court has an obligation under the Crime Victims Rights Act to take certain measures at trial to protect the dignity and privacy of alleged victims. 18 USC",
  20. "position": "main content"
  21. },
  22. {
  23. "type": "printed",
  24. "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
  25. "position": "footer"
  26. },
  27. {
  28. "type": "printed",
  29. "content": "DOJ-OGR-00007057",
  30. "position": "footer"
  31. }
  32. ],
  33. "entities": {
  34. "people": [],
  35. "organizations": [
  36. "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
  37. ],
  38. "locations": [
  39. "Eastern District"
  40. ],
  41. "dates": [
  42. "11/15/21",
  43. "1970"
  44. ],
  45. "reference_numbers": [
  46. "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
  47. "Document 465",
  48. "DOJ-OGR-00007057"
  49. ]
  50. },
  51. "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly clear and legible, with no visible redactions or damage."
  52. }