{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "8",
    "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 8 of 40\n\nthe Court asked if Juror 50 had any doubt about his ability to be fair to both sides. Juror 50 replied, \"No\" and affirmed that he did not have \"any reason to think that [he] can't be fair and impartial here.\" Id. at 134.\n\nOn November 29, the parties exercised their peremptory strikes. The Defendant used all of her strikes. See Nov. 29, 2021 Trial Tr. at 731–32. Juror 50 was one of fifty-eight qualified prospective jurors, and he was ultimately one of the twelve deliberating jurors. Id. at 733.\n\nC. Juror 50's post-verdict interviews and party response\n\nFollowing the thirteen-day trial, the jury began deliberations on December 20, 2021. The jury returned a unanimous verdict on December 29, 2021, finding the Defendant guilty of five of the six counts. Dkt. No. 593 at 29–30.\n\nA week after the jury announced its verdict, on January 5, 2022, the Government informed the Court that a juror had given at least three post-verdict interviews to press outlets about his jury service and requested a hearing be held on the matter. Dkt. No. 568. The letter noted that in the interviews, which were both in print and on video, the juror “described being a victim of sexual abuse” and asserted that he “flew through” the jury questionnaire and did not recall being asked whether he had been a victim of sexual abuse. Id. at 1. The Government indicated that it believed the juror to be Juror 50, and a review of his questionnaire showed that he had provided a negative response to a question that asked whether a prospective juror had been a victim of sexual abuse. Id. at 2 n.2; see also Feb. 25, 2022 Op. & Order, at 3 & n.1, Dkt. No. 620. A letter from the Defendant followed shortly thereafter also informing the Court about the juror's interviews. Dkt. No. 569. The Defendant filed a second letter that same day opposing the Government's request for a hearing “because based on undisputed, publicly\n\n8\n\nDOJ-OGR-00010331",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 8 of 40",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "the Court asked if Juror 50 had any doubt about his ability to be fair to both sides. Juror 50 replied, \"No\" and affirmed that he did not have \"any reason to think that [he] can't be fair and impartial here.\" Id. at 134.\n\nOn November 29, the parties exercised their peremptory strikes. The Defendant used all of her strikes. See Nov. 29, 2021 Trial Tr. at 731–32. Juror 50 was one of fifty-eight qualified prospective jurors, and he was ultimately one of the twelve deliberating jurors. Id. at 733.\n\nC. Juror 50's post-verdict interviews and party response\n\nFollowing the thirteen-day trial, the jury began deliberations on December 20, 2021. The jury returned a unanimous verdict on December 29, 2021, finding the Defendant guilty of five of the six counts. Dkt. No. 593 at 29–30.\n\nA week after the jury announced its verdict, on January 5, 2022, the Government informed the Court that a juror had given at least three post-verdict interviews to press outlets about his jury service and requested a hearing be held on the matter. Dkt. No. 568. The letter noted that in the interviews, which were both in print and on video, the juror “described being a victim of sexual abuse” and asserted that he “flew through” the jury questionnaire and did not recall being asked whether he had been a victim of sexual abuse. Id. at 1. The Government indicated that it believed the juror to be Juror 50, and a review of his questionnaire showed that he had provided a negative response to a question that asked whether a prospective juror had been a victim of sexual abuse. Id. at 2 n.2; see also Feb. 25, 2022 Op. & Order, at 3 & n.1, Dkt. No. 620. A letter from the Defendant followed shortly thereafter also informing the Court about the juror's interviews. Dkt. No. 569. The Defendant filed a second letter that same day opposing the Government's request for a hearing “because based on undisputed, publicly",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "8",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010331",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Juror 50"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "November 29, 2021",
      "December 20, 2021",
      "December 29, 2021",
      "January 5, 2022",
      "February 25, 2022",
      "04/01/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 653",
      "Dkt. No. 593",
      "Dkt. No. 568",
      "Dkt. No. 569",
      "Dkt. No. 620",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010331"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}