{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "13",
    "document_number": "648",
    "date": "03/15/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 648 Filed 03/15/22 Page 13 of 16\n\nsexual assault. In each case, during voir dire, each juror affirmed to the Court that he or she could be fair and impartial. Not only did the Court not strike each of those eight jurors for cause, but neither party even moved to do so on these grounds. (See Dkt. No. 643 at 4-6, 20). Thus, if Juror 50 had disclosed his history of sexual abuse in the written questionnaire, the Court would not have immediately granted a challenge for cause, but would have instead asked additional follow-up questions. Juror 50's answers to the follow-up questions, as given at the hearing, showed that he could be fair and impartial notwithstanding his prior experience.\n\nThe defendant cannot demonstrate that Juror 50 was biased. At the hearing, Juror 50 repeatedly denied that he harbored any bias or feelings one way or another with respect to the defendant or the Government. (See Mar. 8, 2022 Tr at 26:15-20; see also id. at 27:13-17 (explaining that he had \"no doubt\" as to his ability to be fair to both sides); id. at 26:21-23 (\"Q. Did you want to put your thumb on the scale in any direction? A. No.\")). To the contrary, Juror 50 consistently testified that he was fair and impartial in this case and that he rendered a verdict consistent with the evidence and the Court's instructions of law.5 That testimony is consistent with Juror 50's statements during oral voir dire, during which Juror 50 reaffirmed that he was \"[a]bsolutely\" able to put aside anything that he read or heard about the defendant and decide the case based on the facts and evidence, or lack of evidence, presented in court, and follow the Court's instructions as to the law. (Nov. 16, 2021 Tr. at 130:12-18; see also id. at 131:1-7; see also id. at\n\n5 Juror 50's comment that he was not concerned about following the Court's instructions while filling out the questionnaire (Mar. 8, 2022 Tr. at 18:17-18) does not support the defendant's motion for a new trial. As Juror 50 later explained, that response was derived from the fact that he \"began to float, fly through it, in order to get done\" and was \"super distracted.\" (Id. at 40:18-20). It did not reflect a general disobedience of the Court's instructions, and indeed, Juror 50 made clear that he carefully followed the Court's instructions during voir dire—during which he paid attention to the Court's instructions, listened carefully to the Court's questions, \"answered every single one of those questions accurately,\" and did not \"at all\" fail \"to pay attention to the specifics of the questions\"—and during trial. (Id. at 41:1-24).\n\n11\nDOJ-OGR-00010303",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 648 Filed 03/15/22 Page 13 of 16",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "sexual assault. In each case, during voir dire, each juror affirmed to the Court that he or she could be fair and impartial. Not only did the Court not strike each of those eight jurors for cause, but neither party even moved to do so on these grounds. (See Dkt. No. 643 at 4-6, 20). Thus, if Juror 50 had disclosed his history of sexual abuse in the written questionnaire, the Court would not have immediately granted a challenge for cause, but would have instead asked additional follow-up questions. Juror 50's answers to the follow-up questions, as given at the hearing, showed that he could be fair and impartial notwithstanding his prior experience.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defendant cannot demonstrate that Juror 50 was biased. At the hearing, Juror 50 repeatedly denied that he harbored any bias or feelings one way or another with respect to the defendant or the Government. (See Mar. 8, 2022 Tr at 26:15-20; see also id. at 27:13-17 (explaining that he had \"no doubt\" as to his ability to be fair to both sides); id. at 26:21-23 (\"Q. Did you want to put your thumb on the scale in any direction? A. No.\")). To the contrary, Juror 50 consistently testified that he was fair and impartial in this case and that he rendered a verdict consistent with the evidence and the Court's instructions of law.5 That testimony is consistent with Juror 50's statements during oral voir dire, during which Juror 50 reaffirmed that he was \"[a]bsolutely\" able to put aside anything that he read or heard about the defendant and decide the case based on the facts and evidence, or lack of evidence, presented in court, and follow the Court's instructions as to the law. (Nov. 16, 2021 Tr. at 130:12-18; see also id. at 131:1-7; see also id. at",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "5 Juror 50's comment that he was not concerned about following the Court's instructions while filling out the questionnaire (Mar. 8, 2022 Tr. at 18:17-18) does not support the defendant's motion for a new trial. As Juror 50 later explained, that response was derived from the fact that he \"began to float, fly through it, in order to get done\" and was \"super distracted.\" (Id. at 40:18-20). It did not reflect a general disobedience of the Court's instructions, and indeed, Juror 50 made clear that he carefully followed the Court's instructions during voir dire—during which he paid attention to the Court's instructions, listened carefully to the Court's questions, \"answered every single one of those questions accurately,\" and did not \"at all\" fail \"to pay attention to the specifics of the questions\"—and during trial. (Id. at 41:1-24).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "11",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010303",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "03/15/22",
      "Mar. 8, 2022",
      "Nov. 16, 2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "648",
      "643",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010303"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document related to a sexual assault case. The text is well-formatted and printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The content discusses the impartiality of Juror 50 and the defendant's motion for a new trial."
}