{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "39",
    "document_number": "643",
    "date": "03/11/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 643 Filed 03/11/22 Page 39 of 49\n\nMem. at 44). Instead, the questioning of Juror 50 should be limited to only what is strictly necessary to determine the relevant issues.\n\n3. There Is No Basis to Call Any Other Juror as a Witness\n\nThere is no basis to call any other witness at a hearing aside from Juror 50. The questioning of Juror 50 is sufficient to address the only questions as to which the rigorous standard for an evidentiary hearing has been met.\n\nThe defendant nevertheless proposes calling each of the twelve jurors for testimony about whether they have experienced sexual abuse. (Def. Mem. at 50, 57). It would be difficult to imagine a spectacle more damaging to the jury process than requiring each of the jurors to return to court weeks or months after their service was complete to testify about such a deeply personal and sensitive subject. The defendant's request is exactly the sort of \"fishing expedition\" that presents the \"evil consequences\" of which the Second Circuit has repeatedly warned. See Ianniello, 866 F.2d at 543; Moon, 718 F.2d at 1234.\n\nThe defendant's request for such an inquisition is based on a single sentence in a newspaper article, which reports that an anonymous \"second juror described in an interview with The New York Times having been sexually abused as a child.\" See https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/nyregion/maxwell-trial-jury-inquiry.html.17 It is questionable that this report itself may be considered under Rule 606(b), insofar as the next sentence refers to the juror's experience in the context of jury deliberations, so it is not clear from the article whether the anonymous juror made any statements to the reporter that were separate\n\n17 The defendant's motion also states that Juror 50 has made public statements about another juror who discussed experiences with sexual abuse in the context of deliberations. Rule 606(b) precludes the Court from considering this. See Warger, 574 U.S. at 43 (affirming denial of motion for a new trial under McDonough, where the only evidence of juror dishonesty was an affidavit from another juror regarding statements a juror had made during deliberations).\n\n37\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009837",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 643 Filed 03/11/22 Page 39 of 49",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Mem. at 44). Instead, the questioning of Juror 50 should be limited to only what is strictly necessary to determine the relevant issues.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3. There Is No Basis to Call Any Other Juror as a Witness",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "There is no basis to call any other witness at a hearing aside from Juror 50. The questioning of Juror 50 is sufficient to address the only questions as to which the rigorous standard for an evidentiary hearing has been met.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defendant nevertheless proposes calling each of the twelve jurors for testimony about whether they have experienced sexual abuse. (Def. Mem. at 50, 57). It would be difficult to imagine a spectacle more damaging to the jury process than requiring each of the jurors to return to court weeks or months after their service was complete to testify about such a deeply personal and sensitive subject. The defendant's request is exactly the sort of \"fishing expedition\" that presents the \"evil consequences\" of which the Second Circuit has repeatedly warned. See Ianniello, 866 F.2d at 543; Moon, 718 F.2d at 1234.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defendant's request for such an inquisition is based on a single sentence in a newspaper article, which reports that an anonymous \"second juror described in an interview with The New York Times having been sexually abused as a child.\" See https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/nyregion/maxwell-trial-jury-inquiry.html.17 It is questionable that this report itself may be considered under Rule 606(b), insofar as the next sentence refers to the juror's experience in the context of jury deliberations, so it is not clear from the article whether the anonymous juror made any statements to the reporter that were separate",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "17 The defendant's motion also states that Juror 50 has made public statements about another juror who discussed experiences with sexual abuse in the context of deliberations. Rule 606(b) precludes the Court from considering this. See Warger, 574 U.S. at 43 (affirming denial of motion for a new trial under McDonough, where the only evidence of juror dishonesty was an affidavit from another juror regarding statements a juror had made during deliberations).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "37",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009837",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "The New York Times",
      "Second Circuit"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "03/11/22",
      "2022/01/05"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "643",
      "39",
      "49",
      "50",
      "57",
      "606(b)",
      "866 F.2d",
      "543",
      "718 F.2d",
      "1234",
      "574 U.S.",
      "43",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009837"
    ]
  },
  "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."
}