{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "21",
    "document_number": "653",
    "date": "04/01/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 21 of 40\naccurate response. Yet Juror 50 did not read closely Question 49 or consider carefully his answer to it on November 4.\nThese evolving answers do not reflect Juror 50 changing his story so much as an explanation of a complex and fraught set of events and relationships from decades before. The Court is cognizant that jurors may well assign their own emotional connotations to terms like \"family\" rather than interpret it in the technical or legal manner as would an attorney or judge. Cf. United States v. Stewart, 317 F. Supp. 2d 432, 438 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (\"Would a reasonable juror necessarily consider an ex-girlfriend to be 'someone close to him?'\").\nFourth, the Defendant argues that Juror 50's proclaimed reluctance to disclose his sexual abuse is inconsistent with his post-trial conduct. Maxwell Post-Hearing Br. at 5–6, 10–11. In particular, Juror 50 testified that he \"[doesn't] tell very many people\" about his abuse. Hearing Tr. at 22. Yet he conducted several interviews with international media outlets in which he revealed his sexual abuse history. Further, Juror 50 posted a comment on social media to Annie Farmer, a witness in this case, in which he “thanked her for sharing [her] story.” Id. at 43.\nThese prominent disclosures of his sexual abuse, the Defendant argues, contradict Juror 50's statement that he rarely disclosed that abuse.\nThe Court confronted Juror 50 at length about each of these purported contradictions. As to his interviews, the Court asked Juror 50 how he \"reconcile[d] what [he] just said\" about nondisclosure with his high-profile disclosure in media interviews. Id. at 22. Juror 50 primarily provided two overlapping explanations. He first testified that he “didn't think this would happen.” Id. That is, he explained, he “did not think that anybody—certainly [his] family or friends would find this out,” despite the significant media attention that the case had received. Id. at 23. When the Court returned to this issue later in the hearing, Juror 50 added that in the\n21\nDOJ-OGR-00010344",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 21 of 40",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "accurate response. Yet Juror 50 did not read closely Question 49 or consider carefully his answer to it on November 4.\nThese evolving answers do not reflect Juror 50 changing his story so much as an explanation of a complex and fraught set of events and relationships from decades before. The Court is cognizant that jurors may well assign their own emotional connotations to terms like \"family\" rather than interpret it in the technical or legal manner as would an attorney or judge. Cf. United States v. Stewart, 317 F. Supp. 2d 432, 438 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (\"Would a reasonable juror necessarily consider an ex-girlfriend to be 'someone close to him?'\").\nFourth, the Defendant argues that Juror 50's proclaimed reluctance to disclose his sexual abuse is inconsistent with his post-trial conduct. Maxwell Post-Hearing Br. at 5–6, 10–11. In particular, Juror 50 testified that he \"[doesn't] tell very many people\" about his abuse. Hearing Tr. at 22. Yet he conducted several interviews with international media outlets in which he revealed his sexual abuse history. Further, Juror 50 posted a comment on social media to Annie Farmer, a witness in this case, in which he “thanked her for sharing [her] story.” Id. at 43.\nThese prominent disclosures of his sexual abuse, the Defendant argues, contradict Juror 50's statement that he rarely disclosed that abuse.\nThe Court confronted Juror 50 at length about each of these purported contradictions. As to his interviews, the Court asked Juror 50 how he \"reconcile[d] what [he] just said\" about nondisclosure with his high-profile disclosure in media interviews. Id. at 22. Juror 50 primarily provided two overlapping explanations. He first testified that he “didn't think this would happen.” Id. That is, he explained, he “did not think that anybody—certainly [his] family or friends would find this out,” despite the significant media attention that the case had received. Id. at 23. When the Court returned to this issue later in the hearing, Juror 50 added that in the",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "21",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010344",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Juror 50",
      "Annie Farmer"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "November 4",
      "04/01/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "653",
      "317 F. Supp. 2d 432",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010344"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document related to a case involving Juror 50 and the Defendant. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}