more

analyses.json

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 {
-  "total": 1386,
+  "total": 1416,
   "analyses": [
     {
       "document_id": "0063",
@@ -40646,6 +40646,860 @@
         "significance": "This deposition is potentially important because it reveals the witness's understanding of their ethical obligations and their actions regarding potential juror misconduct, which could impact the validity of a trial verdict.",
         "summary": "The deposition involves questioning Ms. Brune about her role as an officer of the court and her obligations to disclose information about potential juror misconduct. Ms. Brune discusses a conversation she had with Theresa Trzaskoma regarding Juror No. 1 and a note related to legal concepts. The questioning highlights a potential issue with the timeliness and nature of Ms. Brune's disclosure to the court."
       }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "a-5718",
+      "document_number": "A-5718",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "pre-voir dire stage procedures",
+          "juror list analysis",
+          "access to specific legal documents"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Theresa Trzaskoma",
+            "role": "colleague or team member involved in jury research"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Dennis Donahue",
+            "role": "jury consultant"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Catherine M. Conrad",
+            "role": "subject of a 2010 suspension opinion"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This deposition transcript reveals details about the preparation and information available to the legal team during the pre-voir dire stage, potentially impacting jury selection and trial strategy.",
+        "summary": "The witness discusses their firm's receipt and analysis of juror information and research conducted before voir dire. They confirm having access to a specific 2010 suspension opinion related to Catherine M. Conrad, although there is a dispute about when it was shown to them."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "a-5719",
+      "document_number": "A-5719",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Discussion about Catherine Conrad, a potential juror",
+          "Voir dire and jury selection process",
+          "Jury consultant's opinion on Catherine Conrad"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Theresa",
+            "role": "Person who researched Catherine Conrad"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Catherine Conrad",
+            "role": "Potential juror"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "The jury consultant",
+            "role": "Provided opinion on Catherine Conrad"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document reveals the thought process behind the jury selection process and the discussion around Catherine Conrad, a potential juror with the same name as a suspended lawyer.",
+        "summary": "The witness discusses a conversation about Catherine Conrad, a potential juror, and how the jury consultant advised striking her due to her background as a recovering alcoholic. The witness also mentions that the potential juror's name matched that of a suspended lawyer, which was considered during the voir dire process."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "a-5720",
+      "document_number": "A-5720",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Voir dire process",
+          "Juror research",
+          "Catherine M. Conrad identification"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Brune",
+            "role": "Witness being deposed"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Catherine M. Conrad",
+            "role": "Potential juror"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Judge Pauley",
+            "role": "Presiding judge"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Trzaskoma",
+            "role": "Team member or associate"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This deposition reveals the witness's decision-making process regarding juror research and highlights potential issues with the voir dire process.",
+        "summary": "The deposition transcript shows Ms. Brune being questioned about her decision not to research a potential juror, Catherine M. Conrad, before voir dire. Ms. Brune admits she had the resources and opportunity to do so but chose not to, instead relying on the voir dire process. The questioning highlights the availability of a large team to assist with research."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "a-5721",
+      "document_number": "A-5721",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Voir dire and juror research",
+          "Discovery of potentially significant information about a juror",
+          "Witness testimony about their actions and decisions during a trial"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Brune",
+            "role": "witness being deposed"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Catherine Conrad",
+            "role": "potentially relevant individual mentioned in the testimony"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals the thought process and actions of a key witness during a trial, specifically regarding the discovery of potentially significant information about a juror.",
+        "summary": "The deposition transcript shows Brune being questioned about their actions during a trial, specifically regarding the discovery of information about a potential juror named Catherine Conrad. Brune testifies that they did not immediately inform the court about the information and did not require anyone to explain its significance to them. The testimony highlights Brune's understanding of the potential significance of the information."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "a-5722",
+      "document_number": "A-5722",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "significance of information about a potential juror",
+          "procedure for verifying juror information",
+          "interaction between the witness and Judge Pauley"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Brune",
+            "role": "witness being deposed"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Judge Pauley",
+            "role": "judge potentially involved in the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "MR. GAIR",
+            "role": "attorney making an objection"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "MR. SCHECTMAN",
+            "role": "attorney addressing the court about the deposition process"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important because it reveals the thought process and actions of the witness, Ms. Brune, regarding potentially significant information about a juror and her interaction with Judge Pauley.",
+        "summary": "The document is a transcript of a deposition where Ms. Brune is questioned about her understanding of the significance of certain information regarding a potential juror and the steps she took or didn't take to verify this information. The questioning attorney presses Ms. Brune for her understanding and actions, with objections and comments from other attorneys and the court."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "a-5723",
+      "document_number": "A-5723",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "voir dire process",
+          "juror information",
+          "judge's inquiry"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Brune",
+            "role": "witness"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Judge Pauley",
+            "role": "presiding judge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals the thought process and actions of Ms. Brune during the voir dire process and her understanding of her ability to request the judge's inquiry.",
+        "summary": "The document is a transcript of Ms. Brune's testimony, where she discusses her handling of juror information during the voir dire process and acknowledges that she could have asked Judge Pauley to ask specific questions to jurors but chose not to."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "a-5724",
+      "document_number": "A-5724",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "jury selection process",
+          "investigation methods",
+          "juror information"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Brune",
+            "role": "witness"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Trzaskoma",
+            "role": "investigator or researcher"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Nardello",
+            "role": "investigator or researcher"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Catherine M. Conrad",
+            "role": "juror"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals the investigation methods used during jury selection and the level of diligence exercised by the defense team.",
+        "summary": "The witness, Brune, testifies about the methods used to investigate potential jurors, stating that they relied on sworn testimony during voir dire and did not conduct a full-scale private investigation. Brune also discusses the handling of juror information, including the use of middle initials to identify jurors."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "a-5725",
+      "document_number": "A-5725",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "jury selection process",
+          "trial strategy",
+          "use of external resources (database, Google efforts, Nardello firm, Dennis Donahue) in jury selection"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Brune",
+            "role": "witness, likely a trial attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Dennis Donahue",
+            "role": "resource hired for jury selection efforts"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document provides insight into the jury selection process and trial strategy employed by the defense, potentially revealing the extent of their efforts to shape the jury.",
+        "summary": "The witness, Brune, is questioned about their experience as a trial attorney and their approach to jury selection, including efforts to gather information on potential jurors and shape the jury to be sympathetic to their case."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "a-5726",
+      "document_number": "A-5726",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Voir dire process",
+          "Juror questioning",
+          "Defense counsel's role in requesting additional questions"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Brune",
+            "role": "Witness being questioned"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Judge Pauley",
+            "role": "Presiding judge in the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document provides insight into the voir dire process and the role of defense counsel in requesting additional questions, potentially impacting the jury selection process.",
+        "summary": "The witness, Brune, is being questioned about their understanding of the voir dire process and their role in requesting additional questions to be asked of potential jurors. Brune confirms that they understood the process and their limited role in influencing the questioning."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "a-5727",
+      "document_number": "A-5727",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Voir dire process in a court case",
+          "Juror selection and challenges",
+          "Interaction between Judge Pauley and counsel"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Judge Pauley",
+            "role": "Presiding judge in the courtroom"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Trzaskoma",
+            "role": "Defense counsel who raised concerns and questions during voir dire"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Brune",
+            "role": "Witness being questioned about the voir dire process"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document provides insight into the voir dire process and the interactions between the judge and counsel during jury selection, potentially relevant to understanding the fairness or bias in the jury selection process.",
+        "summary": "The witness, Brune, is being questioned about the voir dire process in Judge Pauley's courtroom, specifically about the role of counsel in raising concerns and questions about potential jurors. The questioning highlights Ms. Trzaskoma's involvement in raising issues with potential jurors, including one who worked at Goldman Sachs. The document reveals the collaborative and transparent nature of the voir dire process in this case."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "a-5728",
+      "document_number": "A-5728",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Juror investigation",
+          "Potential juror misconduct",
+          "Defense strategy during trial"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Brune",
+            "role": "witness being questioned"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Trzaskoma",
+            "role": "person who conducted a Google search relevant to the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Judge Pauley",
+            "role": "presiding judge in the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Catherine Conrad",
+            "role": "juror in question"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals discussions around a potentially significant issue with a juror and the decisions made by the defense team regarding how to handle the information.",
+        "summary": "The transcript shows a witness, Brune, being questioned about the defense team's knowledge of a potentially suspended attorney serving on the jury and their decision not to bring it to the court's attention immediately. The team had information that could have clarified the issue but chose not to act on it at the time. The questioning suggests that this decision may have been significant to the case's outcome."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "a-5729",
+      "document_number": "A-5729",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "jury selection process",
+          "concern about Juror No. 20's potential bias",
+          "access to documents and printers during the trial"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Brune",
+            "role": "witness being questioned"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Trzaskoma",
+            "role": "raised concern about Juror No. 20"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals details about the jury selection process and concerns raised about a specific juror, which could be relevant to the trial's outcome.",
+        "summary": "The transcript records the testimony of Ms. Brune, discussing the jury selection process, access to documents and printers, and concerns raised about Juror No. 20's potential bias due to her mother's employment at the FBI and her attire."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "a-5730",
+      "document_number": "A-5730",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Voir dire process",
+          "Juror selection",
+          "Defense counsel meeting with Dennis Donahue"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Brune",
+            "role": "Witness being deposed"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Dennis Donahue",
+            "role": "Person met with by defense counsel prior to jury selection"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This deposition transcript reveals details about the voir dire process and the decision-making of defense counsel during juror selection, potentially impacting the fairness of the trial.",
+        "summary": "The deposition of Ms. Brune discusses her role in juror selection, her understanding of a particular juror's answers, and a meeting between defense counsel and Dennis Donahue prior to jury selection."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "a-5731",
+      "document_number": "A-5731",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "jury selection process",
+          "joint defense agreement",
+          "voir dire proceedings"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Aponte",
+            "role": "likely a person of interest or a juror"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document provides insight into the jury selection process and the collaborative efforts of defense counsel during voir dire.",
+        "summary": "The witness is being questioned about the jury selection process, confirming that defense counsel collectively discussed and challenged prospective jurors based on various factors, including gut feelings. The witness acknowledges that the process was not based on perfect knowledge. The questioning also touches on the joint defense agreement and mentions a juror related to Mr. Aponte."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "a-5732",
+      "document_number": "A-5732",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "jury selection process",
+          "juror with a criminal conviction",
+          "trial length and juror availability"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Brune",
+            "role": "witness being deposed"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Judge Pauley",
+            "role": "presiding judge over the trial"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it provides insight into the jury selection process and the considerations made by the parties involved, particularly regarding jurors with criminal convictions and availability for a lengthy trial.",
+        "summary": "The deposition of Ms. Brune discusses the jury selection process, specifically the selection of a juror with a criminal conviction and the consideration of juror availability for a lengthy trial. Brune confirms that having a criminal conviction was not automatically disqualifying for a juror and that availability was a significant concern during voir dire. The questioning reveals the thought process behind the jury selection and the factors that were considered."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "a-5733",
+      "document_number": "A-5733",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Trial proceedings",
+          "Jury selection and questioning",
+          "Juror attentiveness and behavior"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Conrad",
+            "role": "Juror"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it provides insight into the trial proceedings and juror behavior, specifically highlighting the attentiveness of juror Ms. Conrad.",
+        "summary": "The deponent confirms they were present throughout the trial, had a clear view of the jury box, and observed juror Ms. Conrad to be attentive and taking notes. The questioning also touches on the court's inquiry into juror availability."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "a-5734",
+      "document_number": "A-5734",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Juror behavior during trial",
+          "Juror No. 1's note to the court",
+          "Jury deliberations process"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Brune",
+            "role": "witness"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Juror No. 1",
+            "role": "juror in the trial"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Judge Pauley",
+            "role": "presiding judge in the trial"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it provides insight into the behavior and demeanor of Juror No. 1 during the trial, as well as the court's handling of a note sent by Juror No. 1 prior to jury deliberations.",
+        "summary": "The witness, Brune, testifies that Juror No. 1 seemed normal during the trial and didn't raise any concerns. Brune was present when Juror No. 1 sent a note to the court, which was later read by Judge Pauley after summations. The note was marked as Court Exhibit 3."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "a-5735",
+      "document_number": "A-5735",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Email traffic related to Catherine Conrad",
+          "Research conducted by Ms. Trzaskoma and others",
+          "Witness's knowledge and involvement in the email exchange"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Trzaskoma",
+            "role": "Conducted research on Catherine Conrad"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Catherine Conrad",
+            "role": "Subject of research"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "The witness (Brune)",
+            "role": "Testifying about their involvement and knowledge"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals the witness's testimony about their involvement in and knowledge of email traffic related to Catherine Conrad, which may be relevant to the case.",
+        "summary": "The witness, Brune, testifies that they were not included in email traffic related to Catherine Conrad and does not recall being made aware of it. The discussion involves a note that prompted additional research and a dispute about the timing of an email sent by Ms. Trzaskoma."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "a-5736",
+      "document_number": "A-5736",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Conversation between witnesses about an investigation",
+          "Research conducted by Ms. Trzaskoma",
+          "Events on May 12th and May 18th"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Brune",
+            "role": "witness being deposed"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Trzaskoma",
+            "role": "person who conducted research"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Edelstein",
+            "role": "witness present during conversation"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This deposition transcript reveals details about a conversation between witnesses and the timing of their knowledge about an investigation, potentially relevant to the case.",
+        "summary": "The witness, Brune, testifies about a conversation with Ms. Trzaskoma and Ms. Edelstein on May 12th, and when they became aware of Ms. Trzaskoma's research. Brune clarifies their understanding of Ms. Trzaskoma's actions on May 12th and when they learned more about the investigation."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "a-5737",
+      "document_number": "A-5737",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Discussion about Juror No. 1 and a suspended lawyer",
+          "Review of Juror No. 1's voir dire responses",
+          "Speculation about Juror No. 1's background and its relevance to the case"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Trzaskoma",
+            "role": "Participant in the conversation"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Edelstein",
+            "role": "Participant in the conversation"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Judge Pauley",
+            "role": "Presiding judge in the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Juror No. 1",
+            "role": "Juror in the case"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "The witness (Brune)",
+            "role": "Deponent"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document provides insight into the thought process and discussions among the legal team regarding a potentially problematic juror, and may be relevant to understanding the handling of the case.",
+        "summary": "The witness recounts a conversation with Ms. Trzaskoma and Ms. Edelstein about Juror No. 1, speculating that she might be a suspended lawyer due to similarities between her voir dire responses and the juror note. They discussed the juror's background, including a personal injury suit, and initially downplayed the significance of the juror note."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "a-5738",
+      "document_number": "A-5738",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Discussion about Juror No. 1's identity",
+          "Conversation between Ms. Brune and Ms. Trzaskoma regarding a potentially suspicious juror",
+          "Mention of a Westlaw report and its absence from the conversation"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Brune",
+            "role": "Witness being deposed"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Trzaskoma",
+            "role": "Person who had a conversation with Ms. Brune about Juror No. 1"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Laurie Edelstein",
+            "role": "Colleague of Ms. Brune, referenced for her thoroughness"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Catherine Conrad",
+            "role": "Suspended attorney potentially matching Juror No. 1's identity"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Judge Pauley",
+            "role": "Judge before whom Juror No. 1 was sworn"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This deposition testimony is potentially important as it sheds light on the investigation into Juror No. 1's identity and the discussions surrounding a potentially suspicious juror.",
+        "summary": "Ms. Brune testifies about a conversation with Ms. Trzaskoma regarding Juror No. 1's identity, stating that Ms. Trzaskoma expressed doubts but did not mention a Westlaw report. Ms. Brune concludes that Juror No. 1 is who she claimed to be."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "a-5739",
+      "document_number": "A-5739",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Investigation into a juror's background",
+          "Voir dire responses and credibility",
+          "Indictment and misconduct allegations against lawyers"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Brune",
+            "role": "witness being deposed"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals the thought process and decision-making of Ms. Brune regarding an investigation into a juror's background and her understanding of the indictment and its allegations.",
+        "summary": "The deposition transcript shows Ms. Brune being questioned about her investigation into a juror's background, her reliance on the juror's voir dire responses, and her understanding of the indictment's allegations against lawyers. She testifies that she didn't think there was anything to the idea that the juror was a suspended lawyer and credited the juror's sworn statements. The questioning also highlights the significance of lawyers' misconduct in the case."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "a-5740",
+      "document_number": "A-5740",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Witness credibility",
+          "Government witnesses' guilty pleas",
+          "Jury selection process"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Brune",
+            "role": "witness being deposed"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Theresa Trzaskoma",
+            "role": "partner involved in jury selection"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This deposition transcript reveals potentially damaging information about government witnesses and the jury selection process, which could impact the credibility of the trial.",
+        "summary": "The deposition of Ms. Brune discusses the credibility of government witnesses who pleaded guilty to making false statements, and the jury selection process in which Theresa Trzaskoma was involved. Brune testifies that she didn't believe certain information at the time, but acknowledges that she didn't know its veracity. The conversation with Trzaskoma is also explored."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "a-5741",
+      "document_number": "A-5741",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Witness's knowledge and actions regarding a significant piece of information",
+          "Availability of resources for investigation",
+          "Witness's decision-making process"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Brune",
+            "role": "witness being deposed"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals the witness's thought process and actions regarding a significant piece of information, and may be relevant to understanding their role and responsibilities in a larger investigation or court case.",
+        "summary": "The deposition transcript shows Ms. Brune being questioned about her knowledge and actions regarding a significant piece of information, and her access to resources for investigation. She testifies that she did not initially consider the information significant and did not bring it to the court's attention, but had she done so, her team would have investigated further."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "a-5742",
+      "document_number": "A-5742",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "jury deliberations",
+          "juror illness",
+          "alternate jurors"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Brune",
+            "role": "witness"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Rosenbaum",
+            "role": "juror who fell ill"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "The judge",
+            "role": "presiding judge over the case"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document potentially reveals details about a juror's illness and the handling of alternate jurors during a trial, which may be relevant to an appeal or post-trial proceedings.",
+        "summary": "The witness, Brune, testifies about working late and being present when the judge restarted jury deliberations due to a juror's illness. Brune states they did not believe there was an issue to raise with the court at the time."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "a-5743",
+      "document_number": "A-5743",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Disclosure of information to the Court",
+          "Obligation to bring relevant information to the Court's attention",
+          "Juror identification and potential misidentification"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Brune",
+            "role": "Witness, former AUSA"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This deposition reveals Ms. Brune's understanding of her obligations to disclose information to the Court and her actions regarding potentially relevant information about a juror.",
+        "summary": "Ms. Brune testifies about her understanding of her obligations to disclose information to the Court and her decision not to bring certain information to the Court's attention. She discusses her role as a former AUSA and her beliefs about the juror's identity. The deposition highlights potential issues with juror misidentification and the importance of disclosing relevant information."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "a-5744",
+      "document_number": "A-5744",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Timeline of events related to a court case",
+          "Discussion about a person's education and background",
+          "Details about a Westlaw report and its discovery"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Trzaskoma",
+            "role": "Handled a telephone conference with the Court"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Edelstein",
+            "role": "A thorough person who wants to see documents and cases"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This deposition transcript reveals details about the timeline of events in a court case and the actions of key individuals involved.",
+        "summary": "The witness clarifies the timeline of events, initially making an error about the date they learned about a voir dire, later correcting it to July 18th. They discuss Ms. Edelstein's thorough nature and her potential request to see a suspension opinion."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "a-5745",
+      "document_number": "A-5745",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "court transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "witness testimony",
+          "voir dire",
+          "suspension opinion"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Brune",
+            "role": "witness"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Edelstein",
+            "role": "person of interest"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Trzaskoma",
+            "role": "person who informed others about suspension issue"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mr. Schoeman",
+            "role": "person informed by Ms. Trzaskoma"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mr. Berke",
+            "role": "person informed by Ms. Trzaskoma"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "MR. SCHECTMAN",
+            "role": "lawyer objecting to questioning"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "MS. DAVIS",
+            "role": "lawyer conducting questioning"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals testimony about a conversation regarding a suspension opinion and the actions of various individuals involved in a court case.",
+        "summary": "The document is a transcript of a court proceeding where a witness, Brune, is being questioned about a conversation regarding a suspension opinion and whether certain individuals were informed about it. The witness is unsure if Ms. Edelstein asked to see the suspension opinion, but confirms that Ms. Trzaskoma informed Mr. Schoeman and Mr. Berke about the issue on May 12th."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "a-5746",
+      "document_number": "A-5746",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "conversation about a suspended attorney",
+          "jury deliberations in a court case",
+          "actions taken by the witness's team during deliberations"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Brune",
+            "role": "witness being deposed"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Trzaskoma",
+            "role": "person who had a conversation about being a suspended attorney"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Barry Berke",
+            "role": "person involved in conversation with Trzaskoma"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Paul Schoeman",
+            "role": "person involved in conversation with Trzaskoma"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This deposition transcript reveals information about a potentially significant issue in a court case, specifically regarding a juror's status and the actions taken by the witness's team during jury deliberations.",
+        "summary": "The witness, Brune, is being questioned about her knowledge of a conversation regarding Trzaskoma's potential status as a suspended attorney and her team's actions during jury deliberations. Brune indicates she was not aware of the conversation at the time and that her team could have raised concerns before the verdict. The deposition highlights the witness's recollection of events and her team's presence during jury deliberations."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "document_id": "a-5747",
+      "document_number": "A-5747",
+      "page_count": 1,
+      "analysis": {
+        "document_type": "Deposition transcript",
+        "key_topics": [
+          "Conversation with defense counsel",
+          "Joint defense communications",
+          "Waiver of joint defense privilege"
+        ],
+        "key_people": [
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Brune",
+            "role": "Witness being deposed"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Conrad",
+            "role": "Author of a letter to Mr. Okula"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mr. Daugerdas",
+            "role": "Client represented by Mr. Gair"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Mr. Gair",
+            "role": "Counsel for Mr. Daugerdas"
+          },
+          {
+            "name": "Ms. Edelstein",
+            "role": "Colleague or associate of Ms. Brune"
+          }
+        ],
+        "significance": "This document is potentially important as it reveals details about the communication between the witness and defense counsel, and the potential waiver of joint defense privilege.",
+        "summary": "The witness, Ms. Brune, testifies about her conversation with defense counsel after receiving a copy of Ms. Conrad's letter to Mr. Okula. She discusses the timing and nature of her communication with co-counsel, and the conditions under which she is willing to answer questions about their joint defense communications."
+      }
     }
   ]
 }

processing_index.json

@@ -10521,7 +10521,21 @@
     "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010746.jpg",
     "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010747.jpg",
     "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010748.jpg",
-    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010749.jpg"
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010749.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010750.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010751.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010752.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010753.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010754.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010755.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010756.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010757.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010758.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010759.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010760.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010761.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010762.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010763.jpg"
   ],
   "last_updated": "/Users/nickp/code/files"
 }

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010750.json

@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1",
+    "document_number": "685",
+    "date": "06/25/22",
+    "document_type": "Court Order",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": true
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 685 Filed 06/25/22 Page 1 of 1\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\nUnited States of America,\n-v-\nGhislaine Maxwell,\nDefendant.\n20-CR-330 (AJN)\nORDER\nALISON J. NATHAN, Circuit Judge, sitting by designation:\nImmediately upon receipt of the Defendant's letter, Dkt. No. 677, the Court directly contacted the Warden for MDC. He informed the Court that after meeting with defense counsel today, the Defendant was permitted to retain legal documents and a writing implement, to which she has had continuous access. Further, the Warden represented to the Court that first thing tomorrow morning (Sunday, June 26) he will confirm that the Defendant has access to requested legal materials to prepare for sentencing.\nThe Government is ORDERED to confer with the Warden for MDC or MDC Legal Counsel as follow-up to the Court's conversation and to provide an update to the Court by 2:00 p.m. tomorrow, June 26, 2022.\nSO ORDERED.\nDated: June 25, 2022 New York, New York\nALISON J. NATHAN\nUnited States Circuit Judge\nSitting by Designation\nUSDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 6/25/22",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 685 Filed 06/25/22 Page 1 of 1",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "United States of America,\n-v-\nGhislaine Maxwell,\nDefendant.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "20-CR-330 (AJN)\nORDER",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "ALISON J. NATHAN, Circuit Judge, sitting by designation:\nImmediately upon receipt of the Defendant's letter, Dkt. No. 677, the Court directly contacted the Warden for MDC. He informed the Court that after meeting with defense counsel today, the Defendant was permitted to retain legal documents and a writing implement, to which she has had continuous access. Further, the Warden represented to the Court that first thing tomorrow morning (Sunday, June 26) he will confirm that the Defendant has access to requested legal materials to prepare for sentencing.\nThe Government is ORDERED to confer with the Warden for MDC or MDC Legal Counsel as follow-up to the Court's conversation and to provide an update to the Court by 2:00 p.m. tomorrow, June 26, 2022.\nSO ORDERED.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Dated: June 25, 2022 New York, New York",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "ALISON J. NATHAN\nUnited States Circuit Judge\nSitting by Designation",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "stamp",
+      "content": "USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 6/25/22",
+      "position": "margin"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "Alison J. Nathan"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "United States District Court",
+      "United States Circuit Court"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "June 25, 2022",
+      "June 26, 2022"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 685",
+      "20-CR-330 (AJN)",
+      "Dkt. No. 677"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document is a court order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. It is signed by Alison J. Nathan, a Circuit Judge sitting by designation. The document is related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010751.json

@@ -0,0 +1,100 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1 of 2",
+    "document_number": "686",
+    "date": "06/27/22",
+    "document_type": "Court Order",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": true
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 686 Filed 06/27/22 Page 1 of 2\nUSDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 06/27/2022\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\nUnited States of America,\n-v-\nGhislainc Maxwell, 20-CR-330 (AJN)\nDefendant.\nORDER\nALISON J. NATHAN, Circuit Judge, sitting by designation:\nThe Court has now received and docketed the full set of submissions related to victim impact statements that were filed in accordance with this Court's prior order. Dkt. No. 668. The Court received statements from Annie Farmer, Kate, Virginia Giuffre, Maria Farmer, Sarah Ransome, Teresa Helm, Juliette Bryant, and Elizabeth Stein.\nAs indicated in its prior order, the Court will exercise its discretion to permit all of these individuals to be heard in writing. Dkt. No. 682. The Court also denied the Defendant's redaction requests. Id. All unredacted statements are now part of the record. Dkt. Nos. 674, 675-1.\nAlso as previously indicated in its order, the Court will permit Annie Farmer, Kate, and Virginia Giuffre to make an oral statement at sentencing if they wish to do so. Dkt. No. 682.\nFurther, having now reviewed the full set of requests, and having heard from the Government that it does not object, Dkt. No. 678, the Court deems it feasible to exercise its discretion to permit the remaining individuals who seek to themselves make an oral statement at sentencing to do so. They are: Teresa Helm, Sarah Ransome, and Elizabeth Stein. In order to feasibly accomplish this in light of the anticipated length of the sentencing proceeding, while ensuring fairness and avoiding delay of sentencing, each individual speaking orally may read a 1\nDOJ-OGR-00010751",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 686 Filed 06/27/22 Page 1 of 2",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "stamp",
+      "content": "USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 06/27/2022",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "United States of America, -v- Ghislainc Maxwell, 20-CR-330 (AJN) Defendant. ORDER",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "ALISON J. NATHAN, Circuit Judge, sitting by designation: The Court has now received and docketed the full set of submissions related to victim impact statements that were filed in accordance with this Court's prior order. Dkt. No. 668. The Court received statements from Annie Farmer, Kate, Virginia Giuffre, Maria Farmer, Sarah Ransome, Teresa Helm, Juliette Bryant, and Elizabeth Stein.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "As indicated in its prior order, the Court will exercise its discretion to permit all of these individuals to be heard in writing. Dkt. No. 682. The Court also denied the Defendant's redaction requests. Id. All unredacted statements are now part of the record. Dkt. Nos. 674, 675-1.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Also as previously indicated in its order, the Court will permit Annie Farmer, Kate, and Virginia Giuffre to make an oral statement at sentencing if they wish to do so. Dkt. No. 682.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Further, having now reviewed the full set of requests, and having heard from the Government that it does not object, Dkt. No. 678, the Court deems it feasible to exercise its discretion to permit the remaining individuals who seek to themselves make an oral statement at sentencing to do so. They are: Teresa Helm, Sarah Ransome, and Elizabeth Stein. In order to feasibly accomplish this in light of the anticipated length of the sentencing proceeding, while ensuring fairness and avoiding delay of sentencing, each individual speaking orally may read a",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "1",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010751",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Annie Farmer",
+      "Kate",
+      "Virginia Giuffre",
+      "Maria Farmer",
+      "Sarah Ransome",
+      "Teresa Helm",
+      "Juliette Bryant",
+      "Elizabeth Stein",
+      "Ghislainc Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "United States District Court",
+      "Southern District of New York"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "06/27/22",
+      "06/27/2022"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 686",
+      "20-CR-330 (AJN)",
+      "Dkt. No. 668",
+      "Dkt. No. 682",
+      "Dkt. Nos. 674",
+      "Dkt. No. 675-1",
+      "Dkt. No. 678",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00010751"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document is a court order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. It appears to be a formal, typed document with no handwritten text. The document is related to the case of Ghislainc Maxwell and discusses victim impact statements."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010752.json

@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "2 of 2",
+    "document_number": "686",
+    "date": "06/27/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 686 Filed 06/27/22 Page 2 of 2 shortened version of their previously submitted written statement. The Court deems counsel for the individuals to be responsible for ensuring that anticipated statements conform to this requirement. The Government shall promptly provide copies of this order to counsel for the eight individuals who submitted statements. SO ORDERED. Dated: June 27, 2022 New York, New York ALISON J. NATHAN United States Circuit Judge, sitting by designation",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 686 Filed 06/27/22 Page 2 of 2",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "shortened version of their previously submitted written statement. The Court deems counsel for the individuals to be responsible for ensuring that anticipated statements conform to this requirement.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Government shall promptly provide copies of this order to counsel for the eight individuals who submitted statements.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "SO ORDERED.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Dated: June 27, 2022 New York, New York",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "ALISON J. NATHAN United States Circuit Judge, sitting by designation",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010752",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "United States Circuit Court"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "June 27, 2022",
+      "06/27/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "686",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00010752"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court order signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan. The text is mostly printed, with the judge's signature being the only handwritten element. There are no visible stamps or redactions."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010753.json

@@ -0,0 +1,123 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1",
+    "document_number": "687",
+    "date": "06/27/22",
+    "document_type": "Letter",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": true
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 687 Filed 06/27/22 Page 1 of 1\nBOIES\nSCHILLER\nFLEXNER\nUSDC SDNY\nDOCUMENT\nELECTRONICALLY FILED\nDOC #: DATE FILED: 6/27/22\nSigrid S. McCawley, Esq.\nTelephone: 954.356.0011\nEmail: smccawley@bsfllp.com\nJune 27, 2022\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nUnited States District Court\nSouthern District of New York\nUnited States Courthouse\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, New York 10007\nRe: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)\nDear Judge Nathan:\nI am in receipt of the Court's Order, Dkt. No. 686. As explained in our submission, due to a medical issue, Ms. Giuffre is not able to be present physically in the courtroom, but has asked that I be able to read her statement at the hearing. I seek clarification of Your Honor's Order that I will be allowed to read a portion of Ms. Guiffre's statement at the hearing.\nRespectfully,\nSigrid S. McCawley\nThe Court anticipates permitting counsel for CVRA victim Virginia Giuffre to read a shortened version of Ms. Giuffre's previously submitted written statement. SO ORDERED.\nAlison J. Nathan 6/27/22\nU.S. Circuit Judge\nSitting by designation\nBOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP\n401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 | (t) 954 356 0011 | (f) 954 356 0022 | www.bsfflp.com\nDOJ-OGR-00010753",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 687 Filed 06/27/22 Page 1 of 1",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "BOIES\nSCHILLER\nFLEXNER",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "stamp",
+      "content": "USDC SDNY\nDOCUMENT\nELECTRONICALLY FILED\nDOC #: DATE FILED: 6/27/22",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq.\nTelephone: 954.356.0011\nEmail: smccawley@bsfllp.com",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "June 27, 2022",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nUnited States District Court\nSouthern District of New York\nUnited States Courthouse\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, New York 10007",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Dear Judge Nathan:",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "I am in receipt of the Court's Order, Dkt. No. 686. As explained in our submission, due to a medical issue, Ms. Giuffre is not able to be present physically in the courtroom, but has asked that I be able to read her statement at the hearing. I seek clarification of Your Honor's Order that I will be allowed to read a portion of Ms. Guiffre's statement at the hearing.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Respectfully,",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "signature",
+      "content": "Sigrid S. McCawley",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Court anticipates permitting counsel for CVRA victim Virginia Giuffre to read a shortened version of Ms. Giuffre's previously submitted written statement. SO ORDERED.",
+      "position": "margin"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "Alison J. Nathan 6/27/22",
+      "position": "margin"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "U.S. Circuit Judge\nSitting by designation",
+      "position": "margin"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP\n401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 | (t) 954 356 0011 | (f) 954 356 0022 | www.bsfflp.com",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010753",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Sigrid S. McCawley",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "Virginia Giuffre"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP",
+      "United States District Court",
+      "United States Courthouse"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York",
+      "Fort Lauderdale",
+      "Florida"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "June 27, 2022",
+      "6/27/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "687",
+      "S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
+      "Dkt. No. 686",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00010753"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document is a letter from Sigrid S. McCawley to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter is dated June 27, 2022, and is signed by Sigrid S. McCawley. The document includes a stamp indicating that it was electronically filed with the USDC SDNY on June 27, 2022. The letter requests clarification on whether counsel for CVRA victim Virginia Giuffre will be allowed to read a portion of Ms. Giuffre's statement at the hearing. The document also includes a notation from Judge Nathan indicating that the Court anticipates permitting counsel to read a shortened version of Ms. Giuffre's previously submitted written statement."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010758.json

@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "5",
+    "document_number": "20-2000308",
+    "date": "12/23/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case: 20-2000308BAJNDocument: 83 Filed: 12/23/22 Page: 5 of 5353\n464 U.S. 501, 505 (1984). Public scrutiny is essential to “enhance[] the quality and safeguard[] the integrity” of criminal trials. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Ct. for Norfolk City, 457 U.S. 596, 606 (1982). Openness preserves and is essential to “public confidence in the administration of justice.” ABC, Inc. v. Stewart, 360 F.3d 90, 98 (2d Cir. 2004).\nAccordingly, we respectfully ask that the Court unseal Defendant’s Motion for a New Trial and the questionnaires for the twelve seated jurors. We also respectfully ask this Court to make clear that all subsequent documents filed related to this motion should be filed without sealing and with only the redactions necessary to adequately protect the safety of jurors and their identities. We thank the Court for its attention to this matter.\nRespectfully submitted,\nDavid McCraw\nDavid E. McCraw\ncc: All counsel of record (via e-mail)\n5\nDOJ-OGR-00010758",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "header",
+      "content": "Case: 20-2000308BAJNDocument: 83 Filed: 12/23/22 Page: 5 of 5353",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "464 U.S. 501, 505 (1984). Public scrutiny is essential to “enhance[] the quality and safeguard[] the integrity” of criminal trials. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Ct. for Norfolk City, 457 U.S. 596, 606 (1982). Openness preserves and is essential to “public confidence in the administration of justice.” ABC, Inc. v. Stewart, 360 F.3d 90, 98 (2d Cir. 2004).\nAccordingly, we respectfully ask that the Court unseal Defendant’s Motion for a New Trial and the questionnaires for the twelve seated jurors. We also respectfully ask this Court to make clear that all subsequent documents filed related to this motion should be filed without sealing and with only the redactions necessary to adequately protect the safety of jurors and their identities. We thank the Court for its attention to this matter.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "David McCraw",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Respectfully submitted,\nDavid E. McCraw\ncc: All counsel of record (via e-mail)",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "5",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010758",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "David E. McCraw",
+      "David McCraw"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Globe Newspaper Co.",
+      "ABC, Inc.",
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Norfolk City"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "1984",
+      "1982",
+      "2004",
+      "12/23/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "20-2000308",
+      "464 U.S. 501",
+      "457 U.S. 596",
+      "360 F.3d 90",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00010758"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a mix of printed and handwritten text. The handwritten text is the signature of David McCraw. The document is well-formatted and legible."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010761.json

@@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "8 of 353",
+    "document_number": "688",
+    "date": "06/29/22",
+    "document_type": "Jury Schedule Document",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 688 Filed 06/29/22 Page 8 of 353\n\nJuror ID: 2\n\nSCHEDULE\n\nPotential jurors will be called back for further questioning and jury selection from Tuesday, November 16, 2021, through Friday, November 19, 2021. Your availability during that week will be required.\n\nThe trial will commence on Monday, November 29, 2021. The trial is expected to last about six weeks. Generally, trial will be held five days per week, Monday through Friday, from 9:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Trial will not be held on Friday, December 24, 2021 (Christmas Eve Day) and Friday, December 31, 2021 (New Year's Eve).\n\nIf you are selected as a juror, you will be required to be present for the taking of testimony and evidence for as long as the trial lasts. There are no plans to sequester the jury, which means you will go home every day after court.\n\nAll jury service involves some degree of hardship. Our court and justice system depends on citizens doing their civic duty to serve as jurors, which involves temporarily putting aside their regular business for jury service. The Court views service on a jury to be one of the highest duties a citizen owes to the United States. Mere inconvenience or the usual financial hardship of jury service will not be sufficient to excuse a prospective juror. You must show extraordinary personal or financial hardship to be excused from service.\n\n-5-\n\nDOJ-OGR-00010761",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 688 Filed 06/29/22 Page 8 of 353",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "2",
+      "position": "margin"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "SCHEDULE",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Potential jurors will be called back for further questioning and jury selection from Tuesday, November 16, 2021, through Friday, November 19, 2021. Your availability during that week will be required.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The trial will commence on Monday, November 29, 2021. The trial is expected to last about six weeks. Generally, trial will be held five days per week, Monday through Friday, from 9:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Trial will not be held on Friday, December 24, 2021 (Christmas Eve Day) and Friday, December 31, 2021 (New Year's Eve).",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "If you are selected as a juror, you will be required to be present for the taking of testimony and evidence for as long as the trial lasts. There are no plans to sequester the jury, which means you will go home every day after court.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "All jury service involves some degree of hardship. Our court and justice system depends on citizens doing their civic duty to serve as jurors, which involves temporarily putting aside their regular business for jury service. The Court views service on a jury to be one of the highest duties a citizen owes to the United States. Mere inconvenience or the usual financial hardship of jury service will not be sufficient to excuse a prospective juror. You must show extraordinary personal or financial hardship to be excused from service.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "-5-",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010761",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Court",
+      "United States",
+      "Department of Justice"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "United States"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "November 16, 2021",
+      "November 19, 2021",
+      "November 29, 2021",
+      "December 24, 2021",
+      "December 31, 2021",
+      "06/29/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "688",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00010761"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a jury schedule for a court case. The text is mostly printed, with one handwritten 'Juror ID' number. The document is in good condition with no visible damage or redactions."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010762.json

@@ -0,0 +1,133 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "9",
+    "document_number": "688",
+    "date": "06/29/22",
+    "document_type": "Jury Questionnaire",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 688 Filed 06/29/22 Page 9 of 353 Juror ID: 2 PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: ABILITY TO SERVE Please note: In the event you are excused from service on this jury, you will likely not be excused from jury service in general. You will instead be required to report to the Court's Jury Clerk for placement on another panel for another case. 1. Do you have any unmovable commitments between November 16, 2021, and November 19, 2021, which is when jury selection will take place? Yes No 1a. If yes, please explain (without indicating the name of where you work or the names of any family members or friends, or other personal information that might identify who you are): 2. Do you have any unmovable commitments between November 29, 2021, and approximately January 15, 2022, which is the estimated length for trial? Yes No 2a. If yes, please explain (without indicating the name of where you work or the names of any family members or friends, or other personal information that might identify who you are): 3. Do you have any international travel plans between now and November 29, 2021? Yes No 4. Do any circumstances exist such that serving on the jury in this case would entail serious hardship or extreme inconvenience? Yes No 4a. If yes, please briefly describe the serious hardship or extreme inconvenience: -6- DOJ-OGR-00010762",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 688 Filed 06/29/22 Page 9 of 353",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "2",
+      "position": "margin"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: ABILITY TO SERVE",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Please note: In the event you are excused from service on this jury, you will likely not be excused from jury service in general. You will instead be required to report to the Court's Jury Clerk for placement on another panel for another case.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "1. Do you have any unmovable commitments between November 16, 2021, and November 19, 2021, which is when jury selection will take place?",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "No",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "1a. If yes, please explain (without indicating the name of where you work or the names of any family members or friends, or other personal information that might identify who you are):",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "Surgery Dr. Birth Hospital",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2. Do you have any unmovable commitments between November 29, 2021, and approximately January 15, 2022, which is the estimated length for trial?",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "No",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2a. If yes, please explain (without indicating the name of where you work or the names of any family members or friends, or other personal information that might identify who you are):",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "Dr. Birth Hospital",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "3. Do you have any international travel plans between now and November 29, 2021?",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "No",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "4. Do any circumstances exist such that serving on the jury in this case would entail serious hardship or extreme inconvenience?",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "No",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "4a. If yes, please briefly describe the serious hardship or extreme inconvenience:",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "Dr. Birth Hospital",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "-6-",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010762",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Court"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "November 16, 2021",
+      "November 19, 2021",
+      "November 29, 2021",
+      "January 15, 2022",
+      "06/29/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "688",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00010762"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document is a jury questionnaire with handwritten answers. The juror ID is 2. The document contains some illegible handwriting."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010763.json

@@ -0,0 +1,127 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "10",
+    "document_number": "688",
+    "date": "06/29/22",
+    "document_type": "Juror Questionnaire",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 688 Filed 06/29/22 Page 10 of 353 Juror ID: 2 5. Do you have any personal commitments that would make it difficult for you to get to court by 9:30 a.m., every day of trial, or remain at the courthouse until 5:00 p.m.? (Please note, the Court will arrange and provide transportation to and from the Courthouse each day for selected jurors). Yes No 5a. If yes, please explain why you would be unable to get to court by 9:30 a.m. or remain until 5:00 p.m.: Definitely Not 6. Do you have any difficulty reading, speaking, or understanding English? Yes No 7. Do you have any medical, physical, or mental condition or illness that makes you unable to serve on a jury, including difficulty hearing, seeing, reading, or concentrating? Yes No 7a. If yes, please briefly describe the condition or illness. If you believe you could serve as a juror if such condition were accommodated in some way, please state the accommodation. Definitely Know 8. Are you taking any medication which would prevent you from giving full attention to all the evidence at this trial? Yes No 8a. If yes, please explain: Doctor Excused -7- DOJ-OGR-00010763",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 688 Filed 06/29/22 Page 10 of 353",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "2",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror ID:",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "5. Do you have any personal commitments that would make it difficult for you to get to court by 9:30 a.m., every day of trial, or remain at the courthouse until 5:00 p.m.? (Please note, the Court will arrange and provide transportation to and from the Courthouse each day for selected jurors).",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "No",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "5a. If yes, please explain why you would be unable to get to court by 9:30 a.m. or remain until 5:00 p.m.:",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "Definitely Not",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "6. Do you have any difficulty reading, speaking, or understanding English?",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "No",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "7. Do you have any medical, physical, or mental condition or illness that makes you unable to serve on a jury, including difficulty hearing, seeing, reading, or concentrating?",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "No",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "7a. If yes, please briefly describe the condition or illness. If you believe you could serve as a juror if such condition were accommodated in some way, please state the accommodation.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "Definitely Know",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "8. Are you taking any medication which would prevent you from giving full attention to all the evidence at this trial?",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "No",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "8a. If yes, please explain:",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "Doctor Excused",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "-7-",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010763",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Court",
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Courthouse"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "06/29/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "688",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00010763"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document is a juror questionnaire with handwritten responses. The juror ID is 2. The document is generally legible with some clear handwritten responses."
+}