{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "43",
    "document_number": "642",
    "date": "03/11/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 642 Filed 03/11/22 Page 43 of 66\n\npresented by the parties' and, therefore, are indicative of a lack of impartiality because a fundamental instruction in every federal case is that a juror must render a verdict 'solely on the evidence presented at trial.'\" Sampson, 820 F. Supp. 2d at 165 (quoting Thomas, 116 F.3d at 617 & n.10 (citing The Federal Judicial Center's Benchbook for U.S. District Court Judges)). Therefore, dishonest answers are a factor that can contribute to a finding of implied bias. See Skaggs, 164 F.3d at 517.\n\nThe false answers Ms. Maxwell knows about so far, by themselves, provide a basis for a new trial because, if they had been exposed during voir dire, this Court would have treated Juror No. 50 just as it treated Juror No. 55. As explained above, Juror No. 55 was dismissed for cause when the Court, at defense counsel's request, confronted him with his Twitter account after he falsely denied using Twitter. TR 11/16/2021, pp 155-59.\n\nHere, too, Juror No. 50 falsely denied having a Twitter account. It also appears that he was not telling the truth when he said he deleted his Instagram account. But he also did much more, falsely denying that he had been a victim of sexual assault or sexual abuse. If Juror No. 55's false answers \"provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause,\" Stewart, 433 F.3d at 303, Juror No. 50's false answers do as well.\n\nThis Court should treat Juror No. 50 just as it treated Juror No. 55, and on that ground order a new trial. Should this Court hold a hearing, however, it would not be surprising if additional false answers come to light.\n\n36\nDOJ-OGR-00009735",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 642 Filed 03/11/22 Page 43 of 66",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "presented by the parties' and, therefore, are indicative of a lack of impartiality because a fundamental instruction in every federal case is that a juror must render a verdict 'solely on the evidence presented at trial.'\" Sampson, 820 F. Supp. 2d at 165 (quoting Thomas, 116 F.3d at 617 & n.10 (citing The Federal Judicial Center's Benchbook for U.S. District Court Judges)). Therefore, dishonest answers are a factor that can contribute to a finding of implied bias. See Skaggs, 164 F.3d at 517.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The false answers Ms. Maxwell knows about so far, by themselves, provide a basis for a new trial because, if they had been exposed during voir dire, this Court would have treated Juror No. 50 just as it treated Juror No. 55. As explained above, Juror No. 55 was dismissed for cause when the Court, at defense counsel's request, confronted him with his Twitter account after he falsely denied using Twitter. TR 11/16/2021, pp 155-59.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Here, too, Juror No. 50 falsely denied having a Twitter account. It also appears that he was not telling the truth when he said he deleted his Instagram account. But he also did much more, falsely denying that he had been a victim of sexual assault or sexual abuse. If Juror No. 55's false answers \"provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause,\" Stewart, 433 F.3d at 303, Juror No. 50's false answers do as well.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "This Court should treat Juror No. 50 just as it treated Juror No. 55, and on that ground order a new trial. Should this Court hold a hearing, however, it would not be surprising if additional false answers come to light.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "36",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009735",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "The Federal Judicial Center"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "03/11/22",
      "11/16/2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "642",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009735"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text discusses the issue of juror impartiality and the potential for a new trial due to false answers provided by jurors during voir dire. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}