mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021767.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "25",
    "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, Page25 of 35\n\nC. The District Court Abused Its Discretion in Imposing Unreasonable Limitations on the Range of Questions it Agreed to Pose to Juror 50 at the Post-Verdict Hearing.\n\nThe Court's decision to narrow the scope of the hearing to questions relating only to the juror's false responses to the juror questionnaire, was an abuse of discretion because it deprived Ms. Maxwell of a full and fair opportunity to establish Juror 50's bias. For example, the court refused to ask Juror 50 why he disclosed to the jury that he was a victim of sexual assault. According to Juror 50, coming to a unanimous verdict “wasn't easy, to be honest.” In fact, several jurors doubted the credibility of Jane and Carolyn. “When I shared that [I had been sexually abused],” recounted Juror 50, the jurors who had doubts “were able to sort of come around on, they were able to come around on the memory aspect of the sexual abuse.” Dkt 613 at 14.\n\nThe standard of review applies to questions that the court decides to ask or to not ask a juror. This Court recently emphasized that a court's discretion is not boundless in this regard. See U.S. v Nieves, 58 F.4th 623, 626 (2d Cir. 2023). The discretion must be exercised consistent with 'the essential demands of fairness.' United States v. Barnes, 604 F.2d 121, 137-38 (2d Cir. 1979) (footnote omitted), quoting Aldridge v. United States, 283 U.S. 308, 310 (1931); see also United States v. Bright, 2022 WL 53621, at *1 (2d Cir. Jan. 6, 2022) (summary order).\n\n19\n\nDOJ-OGR-00021767",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 87, 07/27/2023, 3548202, Page25 of 35",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C. The District Court Abused Its Discretion in Imposing Unreasonable Limitations on the Range of Questions it Agreed to Pose to Juror 50 at the Post-Verdict Hearing.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court's decision to narrow the scope of the hearing to questions relating only to the juror's false responses to the juror questionnaire, was an abuse of discretion because it deprived Ms. Maxwell of a full and fair opportunity to establish Juror 50's bias. For example, the court refused to ask Juror 50 why he disclosed to the jury that he was a victim of sexual assault. According to Juror 50, coming to a unanimous verdict “wasn't easy, to be honest.” In fact, several jurors doubted the credibility of Jane and Carolyn. “When I shared that [I had been sexually abused],” recounted Juror 50, the jurors who had doubts “were able to sort of come around on, they were able to come around on the memory aspect of the sexual abuse.” Dkt 613 at 14.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The standard of review applies to questions that the court decides to ask or to not ask a juror. This Court recently emphasized that a court's discretion is not boundless in this regard. See U.S. v Nieves, 58 F.4th 623, 626 (2d Cir. 2023). The discretion must be exercised consistent with 'the essential demands of fairness.' United States v. Barnes, 604 F.2d 121, 137-38 (2d Cir. 1979) (footnote omitted), quoting Aldridge v. United States, 283 U.S. 308, 310 (1931); see also United States v. Bright, 2022 WL 53621, at *1 (2d Cir. Jan. 6, 2022) (summary order).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "19",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021767",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Juror 50",
      "Jane",
      "Carolyn"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court",
      "U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "07/27/2023",
      "Jan. 6, 2022",
      "1931"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 87",
      "Dkt 613",
      "58 F.4th 623",
      "604 F.2d 121",
      "283 U.S. 308",
      "2022 WL 53621",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021767"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a case involving Ghislaine Maxwell. The text discusses the District Court's handling of a post-verdict hearing and the limitations placed on the questioning of Juror 50. The document includes citations to various court cases and references to specific documents and docket numbers."
}