{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "15",
    "document_number": "644",
    "date": "03/11/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 644 Filed 03/11/22 Page 15 of 32\n\n1988) (interpreting McDonough and holding that \"a juror's dishonesty is not a predicate to obtaining a new trial. The focus is on bias\"). To the contrary, as five justices recognized in McDonough and as the Second Circuit held in United States v. Langford, a new trial is required when a biased juror is seated even if the juror's false voir dire answers were the result of inadvertence rather than the product of a deliberate effort. McDonough, 464 U.S. at 556-57 (Blackmun, J., concurring (citing Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 215-16 (1982); id. at 220-24 (O'Connor, J., concurring)); id. at 557-58 (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment); United States v. Langford, 990 F.2d 65, 68 (2d Cir. 1993) (\"We read [the McDonough] multi-part test as governing not only inadvertent nondisclosures but also nondisclosures or misstatements that were deliberate. . .\").5 See also Leonard v. United States, 378 U.S. 544 (1964) (per curiam) (reversing conviction based on implied bias and holding that prospective jurors who had heard the trial court announce the defendant's guilty verdict in the first trial should be automatically disqualified from sitting on a second trial on similar charges). In Justice Blackmun's words, which were joined by Justices Stevens and O'Connor and expressed a view shared by Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall, \"regardless of whether a juror's answer is honest or dishonest, it remains within a trial court's option, in determining whether a jury was biased, to order a post-\n\n5 The government implies something deceitful by Ms. Maxwell's reliance on Justice Blackmun's and Justice Brennan's concurrences, noting that six justices joined Justice Rehnquist's McDonough majority opinion. Resp. at 14 & n.8.\nContrary to the government's implication, however, Ms. Maxwell's motion accurately described McDonough and its holding, noting that Justice Blackmun (joined by Justices Stevens and O'Connor) \"concurred\" in the majority opinion while Justice Brennan (joined by Justice Marshall) \"concurred in judgment.\" Mot. at 26. Most importantly, any way you look at it, five votes is five votes. Zerka, 49 F.3d at 1186, n.7 (counting the votes in McDonough and explaining the holding). And in McDonough, as the Court recognized in Langford when it quoted and adopted Justice Brennan's reasoning, the McDonough decision \"govern[s] not only inadvertent nondisclosures but also nondisclosures or misstatements that were deliberate.\" 990 F.2d at 68 (citing McDonough, 464 U.S. at 557-58 (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment)).\n\n10\nDOJ-OGR-00009884",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 644 Filed 03/11/22 Page 15 of 32",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1988) (interpreting McDonough and holding that \"a juror's dishonesty is not a predicate to obtaining a new trial. The focus is on bias\"). To the contrary, as five justices recognized in McDonough and as the Second Circuit held in United States v. Langford, a new trial is required when a biased juror is seated even if the juror's false voir dire answers were the result of inadvertence rather than the product of a deliberate effort. McDonough, 464 U.S. at 556-57 (Blackmun, J., concurring (citing Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 215-16 (1982); id. at 220-24 (O'Connor, J., concurring)); id. at 557-58 (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment); United States v. Langford, 990 F.2d 65, 68 (2d Cir. 1993) (\"We read [the McDonough] multi-part test as governing not only inadvertent nondisclosures but also nondisclosures or misstatements that were deliberate. . .\").5 See also Leonard v. United States, 378 U.S. 544 (1964) (per curiam) (reversing conviction based on implied bias and holding that prospective jurors who had heard the trial court announce the defendant's guilty verdict in the first trial should be automatically disqualified from sitting on a second trial on similar charges). In Justice Blackmun's words, which were joined by Justices Stevens and O'Connor and expressed a view shared by Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall, \"regardless of whether a juror's answer is honest or dishonest, it remains within a trial court's option, in determining whether a jury was biased, to order a post-",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "5 The government implies something deceitful by Ms. Maxwell's reliance on Justice Blackmun's and Justice Brennan's concurrences, noting that six justices joined Justice Rehnquist's McDonough majority opinion. Resp. at 14 & n.8.\nContrary to the government's implication, however, Ms. Maxwell's motion accurately described McDonough and its holding, noting that Justice Blackmun (joined by Justices Stevens and O'Connor) \"concurred\" in the majority opinion while Justice Brennan (joined by Justice Marshall) \"concurred in judgment.\" Mot. at 26. Most importantly, any way you look at it, five votes is five votes. Zerka, 49 F.3d at 1186, n.7 (counting the votes in McDonough and explaining the holding). And in McDonough, as the Court recognized in Langford when it quoted and adopted Justice Brennan's reasoning, the McDonough decision \"govern[s] not only inadvertent nondisclosures but also nondisclosures or misstatements that were deliberate.\" 990 F.2d at 68 (citing McDonough, 464 U.S. at 557-58 (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment)).",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "10",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009884",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Blackmun",
      "Brennan",
      "Marshall",
      "Maxwell",
      "O'Connor",
      "Rehnquist",
      "Stevens"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Second Circuit",
      "United States Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "1988",
      "1982",
      "1993",
      "1964",
      "03/11/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 644",
      "Page 15 of 32",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009884"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}