{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "11",
    "document_number": "342",
    "date": "10/13/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 342 Filed 10/13/21 Page 11 of 17\nviolence, etc.) are relevant to the subject matter of this case. Such experiences are of a highly personal nature, the revelation of which in a public courtroom could lead to embarrassment and emotional distress. As a result, issues relevant to this case need to be addressed in a sensitive and private setting.\nThe jury selection procedures normally used by this Court - i.e., group voir dire with questioning exclusively by the judge - pose heightened problems to an effective and informative voir dire in a case involving topics that are difficult to discuss, let alone in a large public forum. It is typically anxiety producing and discomforting for jurors to make public disclosures. This case amplifies the likelihood that jurors will be more apprehensive and constrained to respond openly and honestly in open court within earshot of other jurors, members of the public, and the media.\nIV. ATTORNEY-CONDUCTED VOIR DIRE PERMITS A MORE INFORMED EXERCISE OF FOR CAUSE AND PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES\nRule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure grants the Court broad discretion in conducting the voir dire examination. The Court has the right to control who conducts the voir dire and has the discretion to allow attorneys to conduct some, or all, of the voir dire. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(1) and (2) (\"The court may examine prospective jurors or may permit the attorneys for the parties to do so.\").\nThe Court should grant a limited period of attorney-conducted voir dire after the Court's general voir dire because it will yield more complete information about the potential jurors for the proper exercise of peremptory challenges. For a peremptory challenge to serve its purposes, it must be intelligently exercised. This requires that the parties obtain sufficient information from the potential jurors upon which to base their challenges. United States v. Ledee, 549 F.2d 990, 993 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 902 (1977) (\"Peremptory challenges are worthless if trial 10 DOJ-OGR-00005216",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 342 Filed 10/13/21 Page 11 of 17",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "violence, etc.) are relevant to the subject matter of this case. Such experiences are of a highly personal nature, the revelation of which in a public courtroom could lead to embarrassment and emotional distress. As a result, issues relevant to this case need to be addressed in a sensitive and private setting.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The jury selection procedures normally used by this Court - i.e., group voir dire with questioning exclusively by the judge - pose heightened problems to an effective and informative voir dire in a case involving topics that are difficult to discuss, let alone in a large public forum. It is typically anxiety producing and discomforting for jurors to make public disclosures. This case amplifies the likelihood that jurors will be more apprehensive and constrained to respond openly and honestly in open court within earshot of other jurors, members of the public, and the media.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "IV. ATTORNEY-CONDUCTED VOIR DIRE PERMITS A MORE INFORMED EXERCISE OF FOR CAUSE AND PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure grants the Court broad discretion in conducting the voir dire examination. The Court has the right to control who conducts the voir dire and has the discretion to allow attorneys to conduct some, or all, of the voir dire. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(1) and (2) (\"The court may examine prospective jurors or may permit the attorneys for the parties to do so.\").",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court should grant a limited period of attorney-conducted voir dire after the Court's general voir dire because it will yield more complete information about the potential jurors for the proper exercise of peremptory challenges. For a peremptory challenge to serve its purposes, it must be intelligently exercised. This requires that the parties obtain sufficient information from the potential jurors upon which to base their challenges. United States v. Ledee, 549 F.2d 990, 993 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 902 (1977) (\"Peremptory challenges are worthless if trial",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "10 DOJ-OGR-00005216",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Court",
      "Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "10/13/21",
      "1977"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "342",
      "24(a)",
      "549 F.2d 990",
      "434 U.S. 902",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005216"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to jury selection procedures in a criminal case. The text discusses the potential benefits of attorney-conducted voir dire in sensitive cases."
}