{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "29",
    "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 29 of 66\n\nsecond, that the correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.\n\nFederal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 provides that, \"[u]pon the defendant's motion, the court may vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires.\" Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a).\n\nThe Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the right to a trial by an impartial jury. U.S. Const. amend. VI. In McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, the Supreme Court recognized that \"[o]ne touchstone of a fair trial is an impartial trier of fact—‘a jury capable and willing to decide the case solely on the evidence before it.’\" 464 U.S. 548, 554 (1984) (quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 217 (1982)). \"The right to trial before an impartial trier of fact—be it a jury or a judge—therefore implicates Due Process as well as Sixth Amendment rights.\" United States v. Nelson, 277 F.3d 164, 201 (2d Cir. 2002).\n\nIn turn, \"[v]oir dire plays an essential role in protecting the right to trial by an impartial jury.\" United States v. Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d 445, 468 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (granting new trial to three defendants based on juror dishonesty during voir dire and concluding one defendant, Parse, waived his new trial motion), vacated and remanded sub nom. United States v. Parse, 789 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2015) (reversing district court's conclusion that the defendant Parse waived his new trial motion). It is bedrock constitutional law that defendants have a right to \"a full and fair opportunity to expose bias or prejudice on the part of veniremen\" and that \"there must be sufficient information elicited on voir dire to permit a defendant to intelligently exercise not only his challenges\n\n22\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009721",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 642 Filed 03/11/22 Page 29 of 66",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "second, that the correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.\n\nFederal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 provides that, \"[u]pon the defendant's motion, the court may vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires.\" Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a).\n\nThe Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the right to a trial by an impartial jury. U.S. Const. amend. VI. In McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, the Supreme Court recognized that \"[o]ne touchstone of a fair trial is an impartial trier of fact—‘a jury capable and willing to decide the case solely on the evidence before it.’\" 464 U.S. 548, 554 (1984) (quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 217 (1982)). \"The right to trial before an impartial trier of fact—be it a jury or a judge—therefore implicates Due Process as well as Sixth Amendment rights.\" United States v. Nelson, 277 F.3d 164, 201 (2d Cir. 2002).\n\nIn turn, \"[v]oir dire plays an essential role in protecting the right to trial by an impartial jury.\" United States v. Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d 445, 468 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (granting new trial to three defendants based on juror dishonesty during voir dire and concluding one defendant, Parse, waived his new trial motion), vacated and remanded sub nom. United States v. Parse, 789 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2015) (reversing district court's conclusion that the defendant Parse waived his new trial motion). It is bedrock constitutional law that defendants have a right to \"a full and fair opportunity to expose bias or prejudice on the part of veniremen\" and that \"there must be sufficient information elicited on voir dire to permit a defendant to intelligently exercise not only his challenges",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "22",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009721",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Parse"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "03/11/22",
      "1984",
      "1982",
      "2002",
      "2012",
      "2015"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "642",
      "464 U.S. 548",
      "455 U.S. 209",
      "277 F.3d 164",
      "867 F. Supp. 2d 445",
      "789 F.3d 83",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009721"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is well-formatted and printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The content discusses legal precedents and procedures related to fair trials and impartial juries."
}