mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021125.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "78",
    "document_number": "59",
    "date": "02/28/2023",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page78 of 113\n\nPOINT III\nDEFENDANT WAS DENIED HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JURY BECAUSE A JUROR MADE FALSE STATEMENTS IN VOIR DIRE AS TO MATERIAL FACTS THAT, IF KNOWN, WOULD HAVE PROVIDED A VALID BASIS TO REMOVE HIM FOR CAUSE. U.S. Const. amend. VI.\n\nA. Introduction\nAfter the trial concluded, a juror gave multiple interviews in which he disclosed that he actively used his own self-described traumatic experience as a victim of child sexual abuse to convince certain members of the jury to overlook issues of credibility surrounding the victims and to convict Maxwell. Defendant moved for a new trial, contending that the juror's presence on the jury violated her Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. Dkt 613, 642. The court ordered an evidentiary hearing limited to questions concerning Juror 50's false statements on the juror questionnaire. A239.\nAt the hearing, Juror 50 gave a patently absurd explanation for his failure to give truthful answers to multiple questions on the juror questionnaire. Nevertheless, the court found that Juror 50 testified credibly at the hearing and that Juror 50 would not have been stricken for cause even if he had answered each question on the questionnaire accurately. Accordingly, the court concluded that Defendant failed to satisfy the demanding requirements of the controlling Supreme\n63\nDOJ-OGR-00021125",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page78 of 113",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "POINT III\nDEFENDANT WAS DENIED HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JURY BECAUSE A JUROR MADE FALSE STATEMENTS IN VOIR DIRE AS TO MATERIAL FACTS THAT, IF KNOWN, WOULD HAVE PROVIDED A VALID BASIS TO REMOVE HIM FOR CAUSE. U.S. Const. amend. VI.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A. Introduction\nAfter the trial concluded, a juror gave multiple interviews in which he disclosed that he actively used his own self-described traumatic experience as a victim of child sexual abuse to convince certain members of the jury to overlook issues of credibility surrounding the victims and to convict Maxwell. Defendant moved for a new trial, contending that the juror's presence on the jury violated her Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. Dkt 613, 642. The court ordered an evidentiary hearing limited to questions concerning Juror 50's false statements on the juror questionnaire. A239.\nAt the hearing, Juror 50 gave a patently absurd explanation for his failure to give truthful answers to multiple questions on the juror questionnaire. Nevertheless, the court found that Juror 50 testified credibly at the hearing and that Juror 50 would not have been stricken for cause even if he had answered each question on the questionnaire accurately. Accordingly, the court concluded that Defendant failed to satisfy the demanding requirements of the controlling Supreme",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "63",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021125",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Juror 50"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/28/2023"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 59",
      "Dkt 613",
      "642",
      "A239",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021125"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a trial involving a defendant and a juror who made false statements during voir dire. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}