mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009122.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "document_number": "615",
    "date": "02/24/22",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 615 Filed 02/24/22 Page 3 of 49\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n---------------------------------------------------------------X\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA :\n-v.- : S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)\nGHISLAINE MAXWELL, :\nDefendant. :\n---------------------------------------------------------------X\n\nPRELIMINARY STATEMENT\n\nThe Government respectfully submits this memorandum in opposition to the defendant's motion for a new trial, dated January 19, 2022 (the \"Defense Motion\").\n\nA defendant \"is entitled to a fair trial but not a perfect one, for there are no perfect trials.\" McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 553 (1984) (quotations and citations omitted). \"A trial represents an important investment of private and social resources, and it ill serves the important end of finality to wipe the slate clean simply to recreate the peremptory challenge process because counsel lacked an item of information which objectively he should have obtained from a juror on voir dire examination.\" Id. at 555. In keeping with these principles, a defendant seeking a new trial based on a juror's statements during voir dire faces the heavy burden of establishing both that the juror deliberately lied, and that the juror otherwise would have been struck for cause. Id. at 556; United States v. Shaoul, 41 F.3d 811, 818 (2d Cir. 1994). On the present record, the defendant has not come close to establishing that the extraordinary remedy of a new trial is warranted.\n\nFor the reasons set forth below, the Court should deny the defendant's motion based on the present record. The Court should further deny the defendant's alternative requests for extensive\n\n1\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009122",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 615 Filed 02/24/22 Page 3 of 49",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n---------------------------------------------------------------X\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA :\n-v.- : S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)\nGHISLAINE MAXWELL, :\nDefendant. :\n---------------------------------------------------------------X",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "PRELIMINARY STATEMENT",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Government respectfully submits this memorandum in opposition to the defendant's motion for a new trial, dated January 19, 2022 (the \"Defense Motion\").\n\nA defendant \"is entitled to a fair trial but not a perfect one, for there are no perfect trials.\" McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 553 (1984) (quotations and citations omitted). \"A trial represents an important investment of private and social resources, and it ill serves the important end of finality to wipe the slate clean simply to recreate the peremptory challenge process because counsel lacked an item of information which objectively he should have obtained from a juror on voir dire examination.\" Id. at 555. In keeping with these principles, a defendant seeking a new trial based on a juror's statements during voir dire faces the heavy burden of establishing both that the juror deliberately lied, and that the juror otherwise would have been struck for cause. Id. at 556; United States v. Shaoul, 41 F.3d 811, 818 (2d Cir. 1994). On the present record, the defendant has not come close to establishing that the extraordinary remedy of a new trial is warranted.\n\nFor the reasons set forth below, the Court should deny the defendant's motion based on the present record. The Court should further deny the defendant's alternative requests for extensive",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009122",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "GHISLAINE MAXWELL"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT",
      "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "NEW YORK"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "January 19, 2022",
      "02/24/22",
      "1984",
      "1994"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 615",
      "S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
      "464 U.S. 548",
      "41 F.3d 811",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009122"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing in a criminal case, with a formal tone and legal language. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}