mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00006052.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "document_number": "407",
    "date": "11/03/21",
    "document_type": "legal document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 407 Filed 11/03/21 Page 4 of 7\nLAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM\nAssn. (2014); see also New York State Bar Association, Dec. 8, 2015 Report of the Social Media Committee of the Commercial and Federal Litigation Section, at 15 (\"[I]t is not only permissible for trial counsel to conduct Internet research on prospective jurors, but [] it may even be expected.\")\nOther courts have acknowledged that using the internet to conduct background research on prospective jurors is a \"rudimentary practice\" during jury selection. United States v. Stone, No. 19-0018 (ABJ), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67359, at *93 (D.D.C. Apr. 16, 2020); see also Carino v. Muenzen, No. A-5491-08T1, 2010 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2154, at *27 (Super. Ct. App. Div. Aug. 30, 2010) (trial judge erred in preventing counsel from using the internet during jury selection). It is so routine that a party who fails to uncover disqualifying information about a potential juror, despite a reasonable opportunity to do so, risks waiving the right to use that information in post-conviction proceedings. Stone at *90 (denying motion to vacate conviction and for a new trial because, inter alia, \"the defense could have discovered the [foreperson's social media] posts as early as September 12, 2019, the day counsel received access to the completed juror questionnaires, including the foreperson's, which had her name printed legibly on the signature page.\")\nHaving additional time to conduct background research on each of the venirepersons is the best way to ensure a fair and impartial jury. Balancing the need to protect juror privacy against Ms. Maxwell's right to a fair and impartial jury weighs in favor of releasing the names of potential jurors to counsel upon the completion of their written questionnaires, not at voir dire.\nRespectfully submitted,\n/s/\nBOBBI C. STERNHEIM\nEnc.\ncc: All counsel of record",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 407 Filed 11/03/21 Page 4 of 7",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Assn. (2014); see also New York State Bar Association, Dec. 8, 2015 Report of the Social Media Committee of the Commercial and Federal Litigation Section, at 15 (\"[I]t is not only permissible for trial counsel to conduct Internet research on prospective jurors, but [] it may even be expected.\")\nOther courts have acknowledged that using the internet to conduct background research on prospective jurors is a \"rudimentary practice\" during jury selection. United States v. Stone, No. 19-0018 (ABJ), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67359, at *93 (D.D.C. Apr. 16, 2020); see also Carino v. Muenzen, No. A-5491-08T1, 2010 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2154, at *27 (Super. Ct. App. Div. Aug. 30, 2010) (trial judge erred in preventing counsel from using the internet during jury selection). It is so routine that a party who fails to uncover disqualifying information about a potential juror, despite a reasonable opportunity to do so, risks waiving the right to use that information in post-conviction proceedings. Stone at *90 (denying motion to vacate conviction and for a new trial because, inter alia, \"the defense could have discovered the [foreperson's social media] posts as early as September 12, 2019, the day counsel received access to the completed juror questionnaires, including the foreperson's, which had her name printed legibly on the signature page.\")\nHaving additional time to conduct background research on each of the venirepersons is the best way to ensure a fair and impartial jury. Balancing the need to protect juror privacy against Ms. Maxwell's right to a fair and impartial jury weighs in favor of releasing the names of potential jurors to counsel upon the completion of their written questionnaires, not at voir dire.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Respectfully submitted,\n/s/\nBOBBI C. STERNHEIM",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Enc.\ncc: All counsel of record",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "BOBBI C. STERNHEIM",
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "New York State Bar Association",
      "LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "D.D.C.",
      "Super. Ct. App. Div."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "Dec. 8, 2015",
      "Apr. 16, 2020",
      "Aug. 30, 2010",
      "September 12, 2019",
      "11/03/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "407",
      "19-0018 (ABJ)",
      "A-5491-08T1"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a legal filing in a court case, with a formal tone and language. The content discusses the use of internet research on prospective jurors and the importance of ensuring a fair and impartial jury."
}