{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "document_number": "A-5906",
    "date": null,
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "CAC3PARC 4\n1 and that of course is very similar to the Chappee case in the\n2 First Circuit. Justice Stevens talks about it being a\n3 legitimate decision, but even an unethical one like sandbagging\n4 I think is going to turn out to bind the client.\n5 The other way this could be a strategic decision, if\n6 what they said to themselves, let's sandbag, but more, look,\n7 she is a pro-defense juror given what we know about this\n8 checkered history, let's keep her on because we're likely to\n9 get an acquittal now. That's the government's view here.\n10 That's what they've advanced in their papers. And I think\n11 that's not at all what happened in this case.\n12 I think the testimony, and the Court referred to the\n13 testimony and said the facts were largely undisputed. That\n14 doesn't mean the inferences from them were ones that all sides\n15 were ready to adopt. But I don't think the core facts were\n16 much in dispute at the hearing. And what happened here,\n17 particularly on that day of May the 12th, is that Ms. I will\n18 say Theresa because I have trouble with her last name, I\n19 apologize, had real second thoughts when she thought about that\n20 juror note and the legal words in it. She then sent paralegals\n21 to work -- as your Honor knows, the one thing about the Brune\n22 firm is they had an army of them. And she got information\n23 back, and her e-mail said something like, Jesus, I think it's\n24 her. And whether that is characterized as fleeting or a belief\n25 held longer than that, there is no doubt that she thought it.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00010161",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "CAC3PARC 4",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 and that of course is very similar to the Chappee case in the\n2 First Circuit. Justice Stevens talks about it being a\n3 legitimate decision, but even an unethical one like sandbagging\n4 I think is going to turn out to bind the client.\n5 The other way this could be a strategic decision, if\n6 what they said to themselves, let's sandbag, but more, look,\n7 she is a pro-defense juror given what we know about this\n8 checkered history, let's keep her on because we're likely to\n9 get an acquittal now. That's the government's view here.\n10 That's what they've advanced in their papers. And I think\n11 that's not at all what happened in this case.\n12 I think the testimony, and the Court referred to the\n13 testimony and said the facts were largely undisputed. That\n14 doesn't mean the inferences from them were ones that all sides\n15 were ready to adopt. But I don't think the core facts were\n16 much in dispute at the hearing. And what happened here,\n17 particularly on that day of May the 12th, is that Ms. I will\n18 say Theresa because I have trouble with her last name, I\n19 apologize, had real second thoughts when she thought about that\n20 juror note and the legal words in it. She then sent paralegals\n21 to work -- as your Honor knows, the one thing about the Brune\n22 firm is they had an army of them. And she got information\n23 back, and her e-mail said something like, Jesus, I think it's\n24 her. And whether that is characterized as fleeting or a belief\n25 held longer than that, there is no doubt that she thought it.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010161",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Justice Stevens",
      "Theresa",
      "Jesus"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.",
      "Brune firm"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "First Circuit"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "May 12th"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "A-5906",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010161"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and readable format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}