mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011321.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "717",
    "date": "07/12/22",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 717 Filed 07/12/22 Page 2 of 10\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 12, 2021\nPage 2\nShawn). And during that time, and mostly at the request of the government, the Court on at least forty-five occasions has admitted an exhibit or series of exhibits either partially or fully under seal to protect the identity or privacy of a victim, third party, or witness. These exhibits include message pads, address books, birth certificates, business records, invoices, and the like.\nAlthough Ms. Maxwell opposed this process as an infringement on her constitutional right to effectively cross-examine her accusers, U.S. Const. amend. VI, the Court overruled that objection. TR 11/1/2021, pp 6-12. Consistent with the rationale for the Court's decision, and without waiving her objection, Ms. Maxwell requests that this Court permit three witnesses called by the defense to testify using pseudonyms or their first names only. Like the government witnesses this Court permitted to testify using pseudonyms or their first names only, these three defense witnesses (\n, Michelle Healy, and\n) have substantial professional or personal privacy interests supporting this request.\nThe government and the Court, of course, know the true identities of the witnesses, as will the jury. Moreover, unlike Ms. Maxwell, the government does not have a constitutional right to confrontation weighing on the other side of the scale. Finally, the rationale for this Court's decision permitting government witnesses to testify using pseudonyms or their first names only supports the same request by these three witnesses. Just as alleged victims will be reluctant to come forward and assist the government in the prosecution of a sensitive criminal matter, so too will witnesses be reluctant to come forward and testify at the request of the defense when the defendant, like Ms. Maxwell here, has been so publicly vilified before she has even had her day in court. In a high-profile case like this, Ms. Maxwell's constitutional rights to present a defense, compulsory process, and to effective assistance of counsel would be compromised if witnesses\nDOJ-OGR-00011321",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 717 Filed 07/12/22 Page 2 of 10",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 12, 2021\nPage 2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Shawn). And during that time, and mostly at the request of the government, the Court on at least forty-five occasions has admitted an exhibit or series of exhibits either partially or fully under seal to protect the identity or privacy of a victim, third party, or witness. These exhibits include message pads, address books, birth certificates, business records, invoices, and the like.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Although Ms. Maxwell opposed this process as an infringement on her constitutional right to effectively cross-examine her accusers, U.S. Const. amend. VI, the Court overruled that objection. TR 11/1/2021, pp 6-12. Consistent with the rationale for the Court's decision, and without waiving her objection, Ms. Maxwell requests that this Court permit three witnesses called by the defense to testify using pseudonyms or their first names only. Like the government witnesses this Court permitted to testify using pseudonyms or their first names only, these three defense witnesses (\n, Michelle Healy, and\n) have substantial professional or personal privacy interests supporting this request.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government and the Court, of course, know the true identities of the witnesses, as will the jury. Moreover, unlike Ms. Maxwell, the government does not have a constitutional right to confrontation weighing on the other side of the scale. Finally, the rationale for this Court's decision permitting government witnesses to testify using pseudonyms or their first names only supports the same request by these three witnesses. Just as alleged victims will be reluctant to come forward and assist the government in the prosecution of a sensitive criminal matter, so too will witnesses be reluctant to come forward and testify at the request of the defense when the defendant, like Ms. Maxwell here, has been so publicly vilified before she has even had her day in court. In a high-profile case like this, Ms. Maxwell's constitutional rights to present a defense, compulsory process, and to effective assistance of counsel would be compromised if witnesses",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011321",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Michelle Healy",
      "Shawn"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "December 12, 2021",
      "11/1/2021",
      "07/12/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 717",
      "TR 11/1/2021",
      "DOJ-OGR-00011321"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and easy to read."
}