{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "63",
    "document_number": "1:20-cr-00338-PAE Document 16166320 Filed 02/24/22 Page 63 of 117",
    "date": "02/24/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00338-PAE Document 16166320 Filed 02/24/22 Page 63 of 117 A-5906 CAC3PARC 4 and that of course is very similar to the Chappee case in the First Circuit. Justice Stevens talks about it being a legitimate decision, but even an unethical one like sandbagging I think is going to turn out to bind the client. The other way this could be a strategic decision, if what they said to themselves, let's sandbag, but more, look, she is a pro-defense juror given what we know about this checkered history, let's keep her on because we're likely to get an acquittal now. That's the government's view here. That's what they've advanced in their papers. And I think that's not at all what happened in this case. I think the testimony, and the Court referred to the testimony and said the facts were largely undisputed. That doesn't mean the inferences from them were ones that all sides were ready to adopt. But I don't think the core facts were much in dispute at the hearing. And what happened here, particularly on that day of May the 12th, is that Ms. I will say Theresa because I have trouble with her last name, I apologize, had real second thoughts when she last thought about that juror note and the legal words in it. She then sent paralegals to work -- as your Honor knows, the one thing about the Brune firm is they had an army of them. And she got information back, and her e-mail said something like, Jesus, I think it's her. And whether that is characterized as fleeting or a belief held longer than that, there is no doubt that she thought it. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00009482",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00338-PAE Document 16166320 Filed 02/24/22 Page 63 of 117",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A-5906",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "CAC3PARC 4 and that of course is very similar to the Chappee case in the First Circuit. Justice Stevens talks about it being a legitimate decision, but even an unethical one like sandbagging I think is going to turn out to bind the client. The other way this could be a strategic decision, if what they said to themselves, let's sandbag, but more, look, she is a pro-defense juror given what we know about this checkered history, let's keep her on because we're likely to get an acquittal now. That's the government's view here. That's what they've advanced in their papers. And I think that's not at all what happened in this case. I think the testimony, and the Court referred to the testimony and said the facts were largely undisputed. That doesn't mean the inferences from them were ones that all sides were ready to adopt. But I don't think the core facts were much in dispute at the hearing. And what happened here, particularly on that day of May the 12th, is that Ms. I will say Theresa because I have trouble with her last name, I apologize, had real second thoughts when she last thought about that juror note and the legal words in it. She then sent paralegals to work -- as your Honor knows, the one thing about the Brune firm is they had an army of them. And she got information back, and her e-mail said something like, Jesus, I think it's her. And whether that is characterized as fleeting or a belief held longer than that, there is no doubt that she thought it.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009482",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Justice Stevens",
      "Theresa",
      "Jesus"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Brune firm",
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "May 12th",
      "02/24/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00338-PAE",
      "A-5906",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009482"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document. The text is typed, and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document includes a header with case information and a footer with the name and contact information of the reporting agency."
}