{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "87",
    "date": "07/27/2023",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 87, 07/27/2023, 3548202, Page2 of 35\n\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nPage\nTABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................................................... iii\nPRELIMINARY STATEMENT IN REPLY ................................................................................................... 1\n\nPOINT I\n(Point I in Appellant's Principal Brief)\nMS. MAXWELL IS A THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY OF A NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT WHICH, BY ITS TERMS, BARRED THE USAO-SDNY FROM PROSECUTING MS. MAXWELL FOR THESE OFFENSES ............................................... 2\nA. Ms. Maxwell has Standing to Enforce the Non-Prosecution Agreement as a Third-Party Beneficiary .................... 3\nB. The Co-Conspirators Provision of the Non-Prosecution Agreement Binds the USAO-SDNY and Annabi is not to the Contrary ......................................................................................................................................................... 7\nC. The Court's Failure to Hold a Hearing on the Scope of the Non-Prosecution Agreement is an Error ........................... 11\n\nPOINT II\n(Point IV in Appellant's Principal Brief)\nTHE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN CREDITING A JUROR'S PATENTLY DISHONEST TESTIMONY OFFERED TO EXPLAIN FALSE ANSWERS TO MATERIAL QUESTIONS IN VOIR DIRE AND FURTHER ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT HONEST ANSWERS TO THOSE SAME QUESTIONS WOULD HAVE NOT PROVIDED A VALID BASIS TO REMOVE THE JUROR FOR CAUSE ............................................................................................................................... 13\nA. Juror 50 Concealed Material Information in Voir Dire by Giving False Answers on a Juror Questionnaire and Then Lied About it to the Court in a Post-Verdict Hearing ....................................................................................... 13\nB. Had Juror 50 Disclosed in Voir Dire his Traumatic Experience as a Victim of Child Sex Abuse, the Information Would Have Established a Valid Basis for a Cause Challenge ............... 16\n\ni\nDOJ-OGR-00021744",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 87, 07/27/2023, 3548202, Page2 of 35",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "TABLE OF CONTENTS",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Page\nTABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................................................... iii\nPRELIMINARY STATEMENT IN REPLY ................................................................................................... 1",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "POINT I\n(Point I in Appellant's Principal Brief)\nMS. MAXWELL IS A THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY OF A NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT WHICH, BY ITS TERMS, BARRED THE USAO-SDNY FROM PROSECUTING MS. MAXWELL FOR THESE OFFENSES ............................................... 2\nA. Ms. Maxwell has Standing to Enforce the Non-Prosecution Agreement as a Third-Party Beneficiary .................... 3\nB. The Co-Conspirators Provision of the Non-Prosecution Agreement Binds the USAO-SDNY and Annabi is not to the Contrary ......................................................................................................................................................... 7\nC. The Court's Failure to Hold a Hearing on the Scope of the Non-Prosecution Agreement is an Error ........................... 11",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "POINT II\n(Point IV in Appellant's Principal Brief)\nTHE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN CREDITING A JUROR'S PATENTLY DISHONEST TESTIMONY OFFERED TO EXPLAIN FALSE ANSWERS TO MATERIAL QUESTIONS IN VOIR DIRE AND FURTHER ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT HONEST ANSWERS TO THOSE SAME QUESTIONS WOULD HAVE NOT PROVIDED A VALID BASIS TO REMOVE THE JUROR FOR CAUSE ............................................................................................................................... 13\nA. Juror 50 Concealed Material Information in Voir Dire by Giving False Answers on a Juror Questionnaire and Then Lied About it to the Court in a Post-Verdict Hearing ....................................................................................... 13\nB. Had Juror 50 Disclosed in Voir Dire his Traumatic Experience as a Victim of Child Sex Abuse, the Information Would Have Established a Valid Basis for a Cause Challenge ............... 16",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "i\nDOJ-OGR-00021744",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Annabi",
      "Juror 50"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO-SDNY"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "07/27/2023"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "22-1426",
      "87",
      "3548202",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021744"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The table of contents outlines the structure of the document, which includes discussions on non-prosecution agreements and juror misconduct."
}