{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "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 4 of 17\n\nARGUMENT\n\nI. THE APPLICABLE LAW\n\nA prospective juror may be excused for cause based on many forms of bias or partiality.\n\nAs the Second Circuit has explained, juror partiality can be actual, implied, or inferred:\n\nActual bias is \"bias in fact,\" generally evidenced by \"express proof,\"\nsuch as a juror's admission to \"a state of mind prejudicial to a party's\ninterest.\" Implied bias is \"bias conclusively presumed as a matter of\nlaw\" from circumstances in which an average person in the position\nof the prospective juror would be prejudiced. Inferred bias exists\n\"when a juror discloses a fact that bespeaks a risk of partiality\nsufficiently significant to warrant granting the trial judge discretion\nto excuse the juror for cause, but not so great as to make mandatory\na presumption of bias.\"\n\nUnited States v. Quinones, 511 F.3d 289, 301 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Haynes,\n398 F.2d 980, 984 (2d Cir. 1968) and United States v. Torres, 128 F.3d 38, 45 (2d Cir. 1997)).\n\nAll types of bias can properly form the basis to excuse a juror for cause. See id. Thus, the jury\nselection process should screen for each type. See id.\n\nVoir dire plays an important role in ensuring that juries are fair and impartial by allowing\nthe Court and parties to uncover unfair actual, implied, or inferred bias. It serves to protect the\nConstitutional right of a fair trial \"by exposing possible biases, both known and unknown, on the\npart of potential jurors.\" United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273, 303 (2d Cir. 2006). For these\nreasons, district courts routinely use their broad discretion to issue written jury questionnaires in\nconducting voir dire, particularly in cases involving extensive pretrial publicity or hot-button\nissues. See, e.g., Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896, 2919 (2010) (approving district\ncourt's use of questionnaire in trial of former Enron executive, Jeffrey Skilling); United States v.\nRobert Sylvester Kelly, 19 Cr. 286 (AMD) (EDNY) (\"R. Kelly case\"); United States v. Elizabeth\nHolmes, 18 Cr. 258 (EJD) (NDCA) (\"Theranos case\"); United States v. Keith Rainier, 18 Cr. 204\n(NGG) (EDNY) (\"Nexium case\").\n\n3\n\nDOJ-OGR-00005209",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 342 Filed 10/13/21 Page 4 of 17",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "ARGUMENT\n\nI. THE APPLICABLE LAW\n\nA prospective juror may be excused for cause based on many forms of bias or partiality.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As the Second Circuit has explained, juror partiality can be actual, implied, or inferred:\n\nActual bias is \"bias in fact,\" generally evidenced by \"express proof,\"\nsuch as a juror's admission to \"a state of mind prejudicial to a party's\ninterest.\" Implied bias is \"bias conclusively presumed as a matter of\nlaw\" from circumstances in which an average person in the position\nof the prospective juror would be prejudiced. Inferred bias exists\n\"when a juror discloses a fact that bespeaks a risk of partiality\nsufficiently significant to warrant granting the trial judge discretion\nto excuse the juror for cause, but not so great as to make mandatory\na presumption of bias.\"",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "United States v. Quinones, 511 F.3d 289, 301 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Haynes,\n398 F.2d 980, 984 (2d Cir. 1968) and United States v. Torres, 128 F.3d 38, 45 (2d Cir. 1997)).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "All types of bias can properly form the basis to excuse a juror for cause. See id. Thus, the jury\nselection process should screen for each type. See id.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Voir dire plays an important role in ensuring that juries are fair and impartial by allowing\nthe Court and parties to uncover unfair actual, implied, or inferred bias. It serves to protect the\nConstitutional right of a fair trial \"by exposing possible biases, both known and unknown, on the\npart of potential jurors.\" United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273, 303 (2d Cir. 2006). For these\nreasons, district courts routinely use their broad discretion to issue written jury questionnaires in\nconducting voir dire, particularly in cases involving extensive pretrial publicity or hot-button\nissues. See, e.g., Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896, 2919 (2010) (approving district\ncourt's use of questionnaire in trial of former Enron executive, Jeffrey Skilling); United States v.\nRobert Sylvester Kelly, 19 Cr. 286 (AMD) (EDNY) (\"R. Kelly case\"); United States v. Elizabeth\nHolmes, 18 Cr. 258 (EJD) (NDCA) (\"Theranos case\"); United States v. Keith Rainier, 18 Cr. 204\n(NGG) (EDNY) (\"Nexium case\").",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005209",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jeffrey Skilling",
      "Robert Sylvester Kelly",
      "Elizabeth Holmes",
      "Keith Rainier"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Second Circuit",
      "Enron"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "10/13/21",
      "2007",
      "1968",
      "1997",
      "2006",
      "2010"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 342",
      "511 F.3d 289",
      "398 F.2d 980",
      "128 F.3d 38",
      "433 F.3d 273",
      "130 S. Ct. 2896",
      "19 Cr. 286",
      "18 Cr. 258",
      "18 Cr. 204"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is well-formatted and easy to read. There are no visible redactions or damages."
}