{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "53",
    "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 53 of 66\n\nE. Juror 50's material misstatements (and those of the second unidentified juror) prevented Ms. Maxwell from exercising her peremptory challenges, denying her a fair trial.\n\nProper voir dire plays a vital role in assuring a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. Without an adequate voir dire the trial judge's responsibility to remove prospective jurors who may not be able impartially serve cannot be fulfilled.\n\n\"Similarly, lack of adequate voir dire impairs the defendant's right to exercise peremptory challenges where provided by statute or rule, as it is in the federal courts.\" Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 182, 188 (1981) (citation omitted).\n\nThe role of peremptory challenges in a criminal trial cannot be overstated:\n\nPeremptory challenges have been an integral aspect of criminal trial procedure for over six hundred years and continue to be universally employed throughout the country. The underlying thesis is that, with the exception of challenges for cause, the suitability of a particular juror is counsel's decision and not the court's. Consistent with that thesis and subject to constitutional strictures, a peremptory challenge can rest on a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all.\n\nState v. Scher, 278 N.J. Super. 249, 263, 650 A.2d 1012, 1019 (App. Div. 1994) (cleaned up).\n\nFed. R. Crim. P. 24 entitles a number of peremptory challenges to prospective jurors. Here, Ms. Maxwell exercised all of her peremptory challenges and, whether for cause or peremptory, would not have knowing allowed a juror who: (1) claimed to be a victim of sexual abuse; or (2) neglected to disclose that the juror had been a victim of sexual abuse; (3) misrepresented the status of the juror's social media to remain on the jury. Had Juror 50 disclosed any of these issues, Ms. Maxwell would have used a peremptory challenge against this juror and not as to any of the other remaining jurors.\n\n46\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009745",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 642 Filed 03/11/22 Page 53 of 66",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "E. Juror 50's material misstatements (and those of the second unidentified juror) prevented Ms. Maxwell from exercising her peremptory challenges, denying her a fair trial.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Proper voir dire plays a vital role in assuring a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. Without an adequate voir dire the trial judge's responsibility to remove prospective jurors who may not be able impartially serve cannot be fulfilled.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "\"Similarly, lack of adequate voir dire impairs the defendant's right to exercise peremptory challenges where provided by statute or rule, as it is in the federal courts.\" Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 182, 188 (1981) (citation omitted).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The role of peremptory challenges in a criminal trial cannot be overstated:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Peremptory challenges have been an integral aspect of criminal trial procedure for over six hundred years and continue to be universally employed throughout the country. The underlying thesis is that, with the exception of challenges for cause, the suitability of a particular juror is counsel's decision and not the court's. Consistent with that thesis and subject to constitutional strictures, a peremptory challenge can rest on a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "State v. Scher, 278 N.J. Super. 249, 263, 650 A.2d 1012, 1019 (App. Div. 1994) (cleaned up).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Fed. R. Crim. P. 24 entitles a number of peremptory challenges to prospective jurors. Here, Ms. Maxwell exercised all of her peremptory challenges and, whether for cause or peremptory, would not have knowing allowed a juror who: (1) claimed to be a victim of sexual abuse; or (2) neglected to disclose that the juror had been a victim of sexual abuse; (3) misrepresented the status of the juror's social media to remain on the jury. Had Juror 50 disclosed any of these issues, Ms. Maxwell would have used a peremptory challenge against this juror and not as to any of the other remaining jurors.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "46",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009745",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Juror 50"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New Jersey"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "03/11/22",
      "1981",
      "1994"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 642",
      "451 U.S. 182",
      "278 N.J. Super. 249",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009745"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text discusses the importance of proper voir dire and peremptory challenges in ensuring a fair trial. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}