DOJ-OGR-00019194.jpg
547 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
3
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
547 KB
Summary
This document is a court order from July 2, 2020, concerning the initial appearance and removal hearing for defendant Ghislaine Maxwell. The court justifies its decision to hold the hearing via video, considering the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights and the public's First Amendment rights to access. It concludes that a video hearing constitutes a partial, rather than total, closure of proceedings, ensuring public access is maintained.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
The document concerns the initial appearance and removal hearing for defendant Ghislaine Maxwell.
|
| Bucci |
Mentioned as a party in the cited legal case 'Bucci v. United States'.
|
|
| Waller |
Mentioned as a party in the cited legal case 'Waller v. Georgia'.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | Government |
Mentioned as a party in the cited legal case 'Bucci v. United States'.
|
| Press-Enter. Co. | Company |
Mentioned as a party in the cited legal case 'Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court of California, Riverside Cty.'.
|
| Superior Court of California, Riverside Cty. | Government agency |
Mentioned as a party in the cited legal case 'Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court of California, Riverside Cty.'.
|
| U.S. Courts | Government agency |
Implicitly mentioned in the URL provided in the footnote: http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2020-07-02
An initial appearance and removal hearing for defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, noticed as a video hearing.
Ghislaine Maxwell
the court
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the cited legal case 'Waller v. Georgia'.
|
|
|
Mentioned in the cited legal case 'Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court of California, Riverside Cty.'.
|
|
|
Mentioned in the cited legal case 'Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court of California, Riverside Cty.'.
|
Relationships (1)
Ghislaine Maxwell is identified as the defendant in a hearing before the court.
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,389 characters)
Case 1:20-mj-00132-AJ Document 2 Filed 07/02/20 Page 2 of 7
incorporated herein. See Standing Orders 20-5 (Mar. 20, 2020) and 20-21 (June 17, 2020).²
The hearing held today will be an initial appearance and removal hearing for defendant Ghislaine Maxwell. Today’s hearing has been noticed as a video hearing. In the event defendant consents to proceed, the court makes the findings below.
Before convening this video/telephone hearing, the court carefully considered the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to public court proceedings and the public’s and press’s First Amendment rights to in-person access to such proceedings. See Bucci v. United States, 662 F.3d 18, 22 (1st Cir. 2011) (citing Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 48 (1984)); Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court of California, Riverside Cty., 464 U.S. 501, 509-10 (1984). This Order details my findings.
II. Partial Rather Than Total Closure
The court first finds that this video hearing constitutes a partial, rather than total, closure of these proceedings. The court so finds because the goals of public access will still be achieved: this proceeding is not being held in secret and the public, including members of the press, maintains the
² All the court’s Standing Orders regarding the COVID-19 outbreak can be found here: http://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/court-response-coronavirus-disease-covid-19.
2
DOJ-OGR-00019194
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document