mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007061.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "10",
    "document_number": "465",
    "date": "11/15/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 10 of 127\nLB1TMAX1\n1 The government anticipates that the alleged victims\n2 will \"testify in explicit detail and/or be the subject of\n3 highly sensitive and personal testimony concerning illegal\n4 sexual abuse. Thus, there's good reasons to limit public\n5 disclosure of their names and specifically identifying\n6 information during trial in this highly publicized case\n7 involving highly sensitive issues.\"\n8 Since there is a valid reason to limit disclosure in\n9 this case, the defense must proffer a particularized need for\n10 the disclosure of the relevant information, which is weighed\n11 against the risks to the witnesses. I'll cite here, for\n12 example, United States v. Marcus, again citing the Second\n13 Circuit case in United States v. Marti.\n14 As both parties acknowledge, the government's request\n15 potentially implicates the defendant's right under the Sixth\n16 Amendment's confrontation clause which guarantees defendants\n17 the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses. The Second\n18 Circuit has identified two central interests defendants have in\n19 the public airing of identifying information about witnesses.\n20 Again referencing the Marti case, 421 F.2d 1263.\n21 The first is not relevant here because, as I have\n22 noted, the defense is aware of the alleged victims' and\n23 witnesses' identities.\n24 The defendant argues that the second interest,\n25 however, is implicated. Namely, defense may need the witness\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00007061",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 10 of 127",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LB1TMAX1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 The government anticipates that the alleged victims\n2 will \"testify in explicit detail and/or be the subject of\n3 highly sensitive and personal testimony concerning illegal\n4 sexual abuse. Thus, there's good reasons to limit public\n5 disclosure of their names and specifically identifying\n6 information during trial in this highly publicized case\n7 involving highly sensitive issues.\"\n8 Since there is a valid reason to limit disclosure in\n9 this case, the defense must proffer a particularized need for\n10 the disclosure of the relevant information, which is weighed\n11 against the risks to the witnesses. I'll cite here, for\n12 example, United States v. Marcus, again citing the Second\n13 Circuit case in United States v. Marti.\n14 As both parties acknowledge, the government's request\n15 potentially implicates the defendant's right under the Sixth\n16 Amendment's confrontation clause which guarantees defendants\n17 the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses. The Second\n18 Circuit has identified two central interests defendants have in\n19 the public airing of identifying information about witnesses.\n20 Again referencing the Marti case, 421 F.2d 1263.\n21 The first is not relevant here because, as I have\n22 noted, the defense is aware of the alleged victims' and\n23 witnesses' identities.\n24 The defendant argues that the second interest,\n25 however, is implicated. Namely, defense may need the witness",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00007061",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Second Circuit"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/15/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 465",
      "421 F.2d 1263",
      "DOJ-OGR-00007061"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document. It is typed and contains legal terminology and references to court cases."
}