mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00005214.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "9",
    "document_number": "342",
    "date": "10/13/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 342 Filed 10/13/21 Page 9 of 17\n\npersistence” and “confirmation bias” are at work. Belief persistence occurs when an opinion formed is resistant to change even when proven wrong. Confirmation bias occurs when an individual forms an opinion early in the decision-making process and then evaluates new information in a way that supports the earlier decision.1 The jury questionnaire is the first opportunity jurors have to tell the lawyers and the Court what they are thinking and, more importantly, what influenced them to think that way.\n\nGiven the likelihood intense media scrutiny of this trial, it is critical to use both a robust written jury questionnaire and individual sequestered voir dire to inquire about the extent to which each potential juror has been exposed to pretrial publicity and to what extent each juror has formed an opinion of Ms. Maxwell and Epstein\n\nBecause there is always the fear that a discussion of pretrial publicity in front of the entire jury pool will contaminate those few jurors who have not been subjected to the publicity, a jury questionnaire and individual voir dire in a case such as this is particularly warranted. If the Court were to engage in public questioning of the venire panel en masse, answers could infect the entire panel. Alternatively, concerns about a panel member’s unanticipated answer may render the questions too carefully worded to uncover the problem. Further, questions asked pose privacy concerns that would require constant side bars. A questionnaire can solve some, but not all, of these issues.\n\nIndividual sequestered voir dire would encourage jurors to answer questions more completely and more honestly because the jurors would not be influenced by (or influence) the answers given by fellow jurors or fear embarrassment in giving an honest response. Jurors avoid the pressure to give “right” or socially acceptable answers in front of a large group or to parrot\n\n1 See Hope, Memon & McGeorge, Understanding Pretrial Publicity: Predecisional Distortion of Evidence by Mock Jurors, 10 J. Experimental Psych. Applied, 111-119 (2004).\n\n8\n\nDOJ-OGR-00005214",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 342 Filed 10/13/21 Page 9 of 17",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "persistence” and “confirmation bias” are at work. Belief persistence occurs when an opinion formed is resistant to change even when proven wrong. Confirmation bias occurs when an individual forms an opinion early in the decision-making process and then evaluates new information in a way that supports the earlier decision.1 The jury questionnaire is the first opportunity jurors have to tell the lawyers and the Court what they are thinking and, more importantly, what influenced them to think that way.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Given the likelihood intense media scrutiny of this trial, it is critical to use both a robust written jury questionnaire and individual sequestered voir dire to inquire about the extent to which each potential juror has been exposed to pretrial publicity and to what extent each juror has formed an opinion of Ms. Maxwell and Epstein",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Because there is always the fear that a discussion of pretrial publicity in front of the entire jury pool will contaminate those few jurors who have not been subjected to the publicity, a jury questionnaire and individual voir dire in a case such as this is particularly warranted. If the Court were to engage in public questioning of the venire panel en masse, answers could infect the entire panel. Alternatively, concerns about a panel member’s unanticipated answer may render the questions too carefully worded to uncover the problem. Further, questions asked pose privacy concerns that would require constant side bars. A questionnaire can solve some, but not all, of these issues.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Individual sequestered voir dire would encourage jurors to answer questions more completely and more honestly because the jurors would not be influenced by (or influence) the answers given by fellow jurors or fear embarrassment in giving an honest response. Jurors avoid the pressure to give “right” or socially acceptable answers in front of a large group or to parrot",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 See Hope, Memon & McGeorge, Understanding Pretrial Publicity: Predecisional Distortion of Evidence by Mock Jurors, 10 J. Experimental Psych. Applied, 111-119 (2004).",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "8",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005214",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Hope",
      "Memon",
      "McGeorge",
      "Maxwell",
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "10/13/21",
      "2004"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "342",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005214"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell and Epstein. The text discusses the importance of using a robust written jury questionnaire and individual sequestered voir dire to minimize the impact of pretrial publicity on the jury. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}