mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021721.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "74",
    "document_number": "79",
    "date": "06/29/2023",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page74 of 93\n\n61\n\n2021) (holding that district court \"properly recognized that the initial question to be explored is whether the juror's nondisclosure was deliberate or inadvertent\"), vacated on other grounds, 142 S. Ct. 2863 (2022), reinstated, 58 F.4th 72, 75 (2d Cir. 2023).\n\nMaxwell's claim also fails at the second step of McDonough. The hearing established that Juror 50 harbored no bias, approached his jury service with an open mind, and was committed to deciding the case based on the evidence and the District Court's legal instructions. As Judge Nathan found, \"Juror 50's credible responses [to questions asked of all jurors who indicated prior personal experience with sexual abuse] under oath at the hearing established that he would not have been struck for cause if he had provided accurate responses to the questionnaire.\" (A.340). If Juror 50 had accurately answered the questions relating to sexual abuse in the questionnaire, Judge Nathan would have asked Juror 50 follow-up questions during voir dire to determine if it would have granted a challenge for cause. Judge Nathan asked those questions at the hearing, and Juror 50's sworn responses made clear that he was a fair and impartial juror who did not harbor any bias and who would not have been excused for cause.\n\nNor was Juror 50 the subject of any bias, actual, implied, or inferred. After assessing Juror 50's demeanor, Judge Nathan found that he \"repeatedly and credibly affirmed that his personal history of sexual abuse would not affect his ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror 'in any way'\" (A.341-42), belying any suggestion that he was actually biased against\n\nDOJ-OGR-00021721",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page74 of 93",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "61",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2021) (holding that district court \"properly recognized that the initial question to be explored is whether the juror's nondisclosure was deliberate or inadvertent\"), vacated on other grounds, 142 S. Ct. 2863 (2022), reinstated, 58 F.4th 72, 75 (2d Cir. 2023).\n\nMaxwell's claim also fails at the second step of McDonough. The hearing established that Juror 50 harbored no bias, approached his jury service with an open mind, and was committed to deciding the case based on the evidence and the District Court's legal instructions. As Judge Nathan found, \"Juror 50's credible responses [to questions asked of all jurors who indicated prior personal experience with sexual abuse] under oath at the hearing established that he would not have been struck for cause if he had provided accurate responses to the questionnaire.\" (A.340). If Juror 50 had accurately answered the questions relating to sexual abuse in the questionnaire, Judge Nathan would have asked Juror 50 follow-up questions during voir dire to determine if it would have granted a challenge for cause. Judge Nathan asked those questions at the hearing, and Juror 50's sworn responses made clear that he was a fair and impartial juror who did not harbor any bias and who would not have been excused for cause.\n\nNor was Juror 50 the subject of any bias, actual, implied, or inferred. After assessing Juror 50's demeanor, Judge Nathan found that he \"repeatedly and credibly affirmed that his personal history of sexual abuse would not affect his ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror 'in any way'\" (A.341-42), belying any suggestion that he was actually biased against",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021721",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Judge Nathan",
      "Juror 50"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "District Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "2021",
      "2022",
      "2023",
      "06/29/2023"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 79",
      "3536060",
      "58 F.4th 72",
      "142 S. Ct. 2863",
      "A.340",
      "A.341-42",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021721"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document, likely a court transcript or a legal brief. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is well-formatted and easy to read."
}