DOJ-OGR-00008986.jpg
686 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
0
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
686 KB
Summary
This legal document argues in favor of allowing 'Juror 50' to intervene in a case to protect his privacy rights concerning a past sexual assault. It cites legal precedents, including the Supreme Court case *Press-Enter. Co.* and the Second Circuit case *United States v. King*, to establish that jurors have compelling privacy interests that justify sealing records on sensitive personal matters. The filing asserts that intervention will also allow Juror 50 to assert his fifth amendment rights before any inquiry is held.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
The subject of the document, who is requesting to intervene in a legal proceeding to protect his privacy rights regar...
|
| Chief Justice Burger | Chief Justice |
Mentioned in the context of the Press-Enter. Co. case, where he made clear that forced disclosure of past sexual assa...
|
| King | Party in a legal case |
A party in the case United States v. King, which attracted intense media scrutiny.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The United States Supreme Court | government agency |
Cited as having explicitly acknowledged that Jurors can have “compelling” and “legitimate” privacy interests.
|
| Superior Ct. of California, Riverside County | government agency |
A party in the case citation Press-Enter. Co. v Superior Ct. of California, Riverside County.
|
| Press-Enter. Co. | company |
A party in the case citation Press-Enter. Co. v Superior Ct. of California, Riverside County.
|
| Second Circuit | government agency |
Cited as having upheld a lower court's ruling in United States v. King to seal parts of the record based on jurors' p...
|
Timeline (3 events)
1984
The Supreme Court case Press-Enter. Co. v Superior Ct. of California, Riverside County, 464 US 501, 511-12 (1984), which established that forcing disclosure of sexual assault details can justify closed hearings and sealed records.
United States
The case United States v. King, where the Second Circuit upheld sealing parts of the record based on jurors' privacy interests.
United States
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the case citation Press-Enter. Co. v Superior Ct. of California, Riverside County.
|
Key Quotes (3)
"compelling” and “legitimate” privacy interests"Source
— The United States Supreme Court
(Describing the privacy interests jurors have that can warrant sealing a record.)
DOJ-OGR-00008986.jpg
Quote #1
"the embarrassment and emotional trauma from the very disclosure of the episode"Source
— The United States Supreme Court
(The justification for holding closed hearings and sealing records in cases involving sexual assault details, as determined in Press-Enter. Co.)
DOJ-OGR-00008986.jpg
Quote #2
"valid privacy right"Source
— Chief Justice Burger
(Describing the right that arises from the forced disclosure of past sexual assault suffered by jurors.)
DOJ-OGR-00008986.jpg
Quote #3
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document