{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "29 of 32",
    "document_number": "616",
    "date": "02/24/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 616 Filed 02/24/22 Page 29 of 32\n\nability to establish that yet a second juror was biased by having been a victim of the very type of crime at issue in this trial. The cases relied on by the government are inapposite as none reach the issue of whether a juror was dishonest in response to voir dire questions regarding whether they had been the victim of the same type of crime at issue. See Resp. at 38-39. Importantly, the government cites only to cases where the only evidence that a juror had engaged in misconduct was a news article to that effect. Here, there are two pieces of evidence: one, the New York Times article, and two, Juror No. 50's media statement that a second juror disclosed that they were also a victim of childhood sexual abuse. Where there is \"clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence\" of juror misconduct, a hearing on that issue is required. United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273, 302-03 (2d Cir. 2006).\n\nThe government paints a parade of horrors to try to dissuade the Court from pursuing this second clear instance of a juror's inaccurate voir dire statement on a critical issue in this case. Resp. at 37. Yet simply asking the other 11 jurors one question, whether they were the victim of childhood sexual abuse is not the intrusion the government suggests; the juror apparently felt comfortable sharing that information both during deliberations and also to the New York Times.\n\n4. Ms. Maxwell is entitled to Discovery\n\nThe government cites no authority for its request to foreclose discovery in advance of the hearing, nor could they given that such discovery is often necessary to establish the very misconduct at issue. The government's complaints center on their view that the requested discovery is either overbroad or violative of Rule 606(b). The government intentionally misreads the defendant's request. Obviously, Ms. Maxwell would be requesting communications that occurred outside of deliberations. It is also surprising that the government thinks that there will be a \"high volume\" of social media material during the \"relevant time frame,\" i.e., between when Juror No. 50",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 616 Filed 02/24/22 Page 29 of 32",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "ability to establish that yet a second juror was biased by having been a victim of the very type of crime at issue in this trial. The cases relied on by the government are inapposite as none reach the issue of whether a juror was dishonest in response to voir dire questions regarding whether they had been the victim of the same type of crime at issue. See Resp. at 38-39. Importantly, the government cites only to cases where the only evidence that a juror had engaged in misconduct was a news article to that effect. Here, there are two pieces of evidence: one, the New York Times article, and two, Juror No. 50's media statement that a second juror disclosed that they were also a victim of childhood sexual abuse. Where there is \"clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence\" of juror misconduct, a hearing on that issue is required. United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273, 302-03 (2d Cir. 2006).",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government paints a parade of horrors to try to dissuade the Court from pursuing this second clear instance of a juror's inaccurate voir dire statement on a critical issue in this case. Resp. at 37. Yet simply asking the other 11 jurors one question, whether they were the victim of childhood sexual abuse is not the intrusion the government suggests; the juror apparently felt comfortable sharing that information both during deliberations and also to the New York Times.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4. Ms. Maxwell is entitled to Discovery",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government cites no authority for its request to foreclose discovery in advance of the hearing, nor could they given that such discovery is often necessary to establish the very misconduct at issue. The government's complaints center on their view that the requested discovery is either overbroad or violative of Rule 606(b). The government intentionally misreads the defendant's request. Obviously, Ms. Maxwell would be requesting communications that occurred outside of deliberations. It is also surprising that the government thinks that there will be a \"high volume\" of social media material during the \"relevant time frame,\" i.e., between when Juror No. 50",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "24",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009219",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "New York Times"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/24/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 616",
      "Resp. at 38-39",
      "Resp. at 37",
      "433 F.3d 273",
      "Rule 606(b)"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text discusses juror misconduct and the need for discovery. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}