{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "59",
    "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 59 of 66\n\nF.3d 271, 278 (3d Cir. 2012). Juror No. 50 is not a party here and there is no legal basis for Juror No. 50 to intervene in this matter. This is not a request by a journalist to intervene for public access. See United States v. Aref, 533 F.3d 72, 81 (2d Cir. 2008) (motion to intervene to assert the public’s First Amendment right of access to criminal proceedings is proper). Nor is the request from a subpoena respondent. See United States v. RMI Co., 599 F.2d 1183, 1186 (3d Cir. 1979) (persons affected by the disclosure of allegedly privileged materials may intervene in pending criminal proceedings and seek protective orders). Although Juror No. 50 has expressed a questionable interest in the outcome of this case, that does not afford him standing to intervene. Notably, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure make no reference to a motion to intervene in a criminal case. This is a recognition of the general rule that “a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.” Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973). And as one court has noted, “[e]ven crime victims, who enjoy various statutory rights of participation, have no right to intervene in the district court in a criminal case.” United States v. Collins, 2013 WL 4780927, at *1 (E.D. Wis. 2013).\n\nB. This Court should refuse Juror No. 50’s discovery request because Juror No. 50 is under investigation and the release of the information requested would prejudice that investigation.\n\nIt is the conduct of Juror No. 50 that is under investigation here. Like many suspects, Juror No. 50 would like to learn as much information about the investigation so that he can tailor responses to any potential questions and change the focus of the investigation. Once he was thoroughly tipped off by the government, Juror No. 50 has\n\n52\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009751",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 642 Filed 03/11/22 Page 59 of 66",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "F.3d 271, 278 (3d Cir. 2012). Juror No. 50 is not a party here and there is no legal basis for Juror No. 50 to intervene in this matter. This is not a request by a journalist to intervene for public access. See United States v. Aref, 533 F.3d 72, 81 (2d Cir. 2008) (motion to intervene to assert the public’s First Amendment right of access to criminal proceedings is proper). Nor is the request from a subpoena respondent. See United States v. RMI Co., 599 F.2d 1183, 1186 (3d Cir. 1979) (persons affected by the disclosure of allegedly privileged materials may intervene in pending criminal proceedings and seek protective orders). Although Juror No. 50 has expressed a questionable interest in the outcome of this case, that does not afford him standing to intervene. Notably, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure make no reference to a motion to intervene in a criminal case. This is a recognition of the general rule that “a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.” Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973). And as one court has noted, “[e]ven crime victims, who enjoy various statutory rights of participation, have no right to intervene in the district court in a criminal case.” United States v. Collins, 2013 WL 4780927, at *1 (E.D. Wis. 2013).",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. This Court should refuse Juror No. 50’s discovery request because Juror No. 50 is under investigation and the release of the information requested would prejudice that investigation.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "It is the conduct of Juror No. 50 that is under investigation here. Like many suspects, Juror No. 50 would like to learn as much information about the investigation so that he can tailor responses to any potential questions and change the focus of the investigation. Once he was thoroughly tipped off by the government, Juror No. 50 has",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "52",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009751",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Juror No. 50",
      "Aref",
      "Linda R.S.",
      "Richard D."
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "E.D. Wis"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "03/11/22",
      "2012",
      "2008",
      "1979",
      "1973",
      "2013"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 642",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009751"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing the issue of a juror's request to intervene and access certain information. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes."
}