mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008856.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "5",
    "document_number": "590",
    "date": "02/01/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 590 Filed 02/01/22 Page 5 of 9\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nFebruary 1, 2022\nPage 5\nof access under the common law \"is high for documents submitted as part of dispositive-motion practice.\" (citing Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 123)).\nBut there is no \"higher value\" or \"competing consideration\" that is more compelling or more important than protecting Ms. Maxwell's constitutional right to a fair trial. See Silver, 2016 WL 1572993, at *5 (citing United States v. Doe, 63 F.3d 121, 128 (2d Cir. 1995) (\"Compelling interests may include the defendant's right to a fair trial.\")). Sealing is warranted to protect a defendant's fair trial rights if the Court makes specific findings that \"first, there is a substantial probability that the defendant's right to a fair trial will be prejudiced by publicity that [sealing] would prevent, and, second, reasonable alternatives to [sealing] cannot adequately protect the defendant's fair trial rights. Id. at *8 (quoting Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court of California for Riverside Cty., 478 U.S. 1, 14 (1986) (citations omitted) (\"Press-Enterprise II\")).\nAlthough cases addressing this point have focused on the need to seal to prevent the prejudicial effects of pretrial publicity on a defendant's right to a fair trial, rather than the effects of post-trial disclosure on a defendant's motion for a new trial, the principle at stake is the same.\nMs. Maxwell vigorously asserts that she did not receive a fair trial because of Juror 50's presence on the jury (and potentially the presence of other jurors who were the victims of sexual abuse).\nThrough her Motion, Ms. Maxwell is seeking to vindicate her right to a fair trial and to remedy the structural error that occurred during the voir dire process. Ms. Maxwell's fair trial rights must be protected post-trial just as vigorously as they are pre-trial. To do that, it is necessary to keep the Motion temporarily sealed.\n2087306.1\nDOJ-OGR-00008856",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 590 Filed 02/01/22 Page 5 of 9",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nFebruary 1, 2022\nPage 5",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "of access under the common law \"is high for documents submitted as part of dispositive-motion practice.\" (citing Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 123)).\nBut there is no \"higher value\" or \"competing consideration\" that is more compelling or more important than protecting Ms. Maxwell's constitutional right to a fair trial. See Silver, 2016 WL 1572993, at *5 (citing United States v. Doe, 63 F.3d 121, 128 (2d Cir. 1995) (\"Compelling interests may include the defendant's right to a fair trial.\")). Sealing is warranted to protect a defendant's fair trial rights if the Court makes specific findings that \"first, there is a substantial probability that the defendant's right to a fair trial will be prejudiced by publicity that [sealing] would prevent, and, second, reasonable alternatives to [sealing] cannot adequately protect the defendant's fair trial rights. Id. at *8 (quoting Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court of California for Riverside Cty., 478 U.S. 1, 14 (1986) (citations omitted) (\"Press-Enterprise II\")).\nAlthough cases addressing this point have focused on the need to seal to prevent the prejudicial effects of pretrial publicity on a defendant's right to a fair trial, rather than the effects of post-trial disclosure on a defendant's motion for a new trial, the principle at stake is the same.\nMs. Maxwell vigorously asserts that she did not receive a fair trial because of Juror 50's presence on the jury (and potentially the presence of other jurors who were the victims of sexual abuse).\nThrough her Motion, Ms. Maxwell is seeking to vindicate her right to a fair trial and to remedy the structural error that occurred during the voir dire process. Ms. Maxwell's fair trial rights must be protected post-trial just as vigorously as they are pre-trial. To do that, it is necessary to keep the Motion temporarily sealed.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2087306.1\nDOJ-OGR-00008856",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Juror 50"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States",
      "Superior Court of California for Riverside Cty."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "California",
      "Riverside Cty."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "February 1, 2022",
      "02/01/22",
      "1986"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 590",
      "2087306.1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008856"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 5 of a 9-page document."
}