{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "55",
    "document_number": "613",
    "date": "02/24/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 55 of 66\nexperiences, he would have been excused, if not for cause, then as a defense peremptory strike.\n\nII. The scope of any evidentiary hearing\n\nMs. Maxwell does not believe an evidentiary hearing is required because the undisputed evidence shows (1) that Juror No. 50 falsely answered a material question during voir dire and (2) that, had he answered truthfully, he would have been subject to a challenge for cause. If this Court disagrees, however, a formal evidentiary hearing is appropriate.\n\nWhen, as here, there is a plausible claim of juror misconduct, \"an unflagging duty falls to the district court to investigate the claim.\" United States v. French, 904 F.3d 111, 117 (1st Cir. 2018) (quotation omitted). \"[A] formal evidentiary hearing [is] the gold standard for an inquiry into alleged juror misconduct.\" United States v. French, 977 F.3d 114, 122 (1st Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 2601 (2021), cert. denied sub nom. Russell v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 2601 (2021).\n\nA. Pre-hearing discovery\n\nMs. Maxwell requests that the Court authorize subpoenas to:\n\n1. Juror No. 50 to produce:\n\na. Emails or other written communications between Juror No. 50 and any alleged victim or witness in this case;\n\nb. Emails or other written communications between Juror No. 50 and any other juror in this case;\n\n48\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009056",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 55 of 66",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "experiences, he would have been excused, if not for cause, then as a defense peremptory strike.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "II. The scope of any evidentiary hearing\n\nMs. Maxwell does not believe an evidentiary hearing is required because the undisputed evidence shows (1) that Juror No. 50 falsely answered a material question during voir dire and (2) that, had he answered truthfully, he would have been subject to a challenge for cause. If this Court disagrees, however, a formal evidentiary hearing is appropriate.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "When, as here, there is a plausible claim of juror misconduct, \"an unflagging duty falls to the district court to investigate the claim.\" United States v. French, 904 F.3d 111, 117 (1st Cir. 2018) (quotation omitted). \"[A] formal evidentiary hearing [is] the gold standard for an inquiry into alleged juror misconduct.\" United States v. French, 977 F.3d 114, 122 (1st Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 2601 (2021), cert. denied sub nom. Russell v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 2601 (2021).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A. Pre-hearing discovery\n\nMs. Maxwell requests that the Court authorize subpoenas to:\n\n1. Juror No. 50 to produce:\n\na. Emails or other written communications between Juror No. 50 and any alleged victim or witness in this case;\n\nb. Emails or other written communications between Juror No. 50 and any other juror in this case;",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "48",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009056",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Juror No. 50"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/24/22",
      "2018",
      "2020",
      "2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 613",
      "904 F.3d 111",
      "977 F.3d 114",
      "141 S. Ct. 2601",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009056"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, with a formal tone and legal language. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}