mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009134.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "15",
    "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 15 of 49\n\nSee Warger v. Shauers, 574 U.S. 40, 44 (2014). This rule promotes \"the public interest in maintaining both the finality of verdicts and full and free discussion within the confines of the jury room.\" United States v. Radonjich, 1 F.3d 117, 120 (2d Cir. 1993).\n\nB. Discussion\n\nBased on the current record, the defendant has failed to satisfy either prong of the McDonough test. However, the Government consents to a limited hearing, as set forth in more detail in Part II, infra.\n\n1. The Defendant Has Failed to Satisfy the First Prong of McDonough\na. The Defendant Must Prove a Deliberate Falsehood\n\nThe defendant argues that, under the McDonough test, \"[a]n intentionally false answer during voir dire is not a prerequisite to obtaining a new trial.\" (Def. Mem. at 23). This argument is foreclosed by binding Second Circuit precedent, which requires \"dishonesty,\" i.e., a deliberate falsehood or deceit, rather than an honest mistake. Shaoul, 41 F.3d at 815-16. \"In other words, the Court must assess whether [the juror] deliberately lied or consciously deceived the Court, as opposed to providing inaccurate responses as a result of a mistake, misunderstanding or embarrassment.\" United States v. Nix, 275 F. Supp. 3d 420, 437 (W.D.N.Y. 2017) (citing Shaoul, 41 F.3d at 815), aff'd sub nom. United States v. McCoy, 995 F.3d 32 (2d Cir. 2021). That rule exists for good reason: \"To invalidate the result of a three-week trial because of a juror's mistaken, though honest response to a question, is to insist on something closer to perfection than our judicial system can be expected to give.\" McDonough, 464 U.S. at 555.\n\nIn Shaoul, the Second Circuit considered McDonough and, specifically, its holding \"'that to obtain a new trial in . . . a situation [where a juror makes a mistaken response to a question], a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire,\n\n13\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009134",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 615 Filed 02/24/22 Page 15 of 49",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "See Warger v. Shauers, 574 U.S. 40, 44 (2014). This rule promotes \"the public interest in maintaining both the finality of verdicts and full and free discussion within the confines of the jury room.\" United States v. Radonjich, 1 F.3d 117, 120 (2d Cir. 1993).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. Discussion",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Based on the current record, the defendant has failed to satisfy either prong of the McDonough test. However, the Government consents to a limited hearing, as set forth in more detail in Part II, infra.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1. The Defendant Has Failed to Satisfy the First Prong of McDonough\na. The Defendant Must Prove a Deliberate Falsehood",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defendant argues that, under the McDonough test, \"[a]n intentionally false answer during voir dire is not a prerequisite to obtaining a new trial.\" (Def. Mem. at 23). This argument is foreclosed by binding Second Circuit precedent, which requires \"dishonesty,\" i.e., a deliberate falsehood or deceit, rather than an honest mistake. Shaoul, 41 F.3d at 815-16. \"In other words, the Court must assess whether [the juror] deliberately lied or consciously deceived the Court, as opposed to providing inaccurate responses as a result of a mistake, misunderstanding or embarrassment.\" United States v. Nix, 275 F. Supp. 3d 420, 437 (W.D.N.Y. 2017) (citing Shaoul, 41 F.3d at 815), aff'd sub nom. United States v. McCoy, 995 F.3d 32 (2d Cir. 2021). That rule exists for good reason: \"To invalidate the result of a three-week trial because of a juror's mistaken, though honest response to a question, is to insist on something closer to perfection than our judicial system can be expected to give.\" McDonough, 464 U.S. at 555.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In Shaoul, the Second Circuit considered McDonough and, specifically, its holding \"'that to obtain a new trial in . . . a situation [where a juror makes a mistaken response to a question], a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire,",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "13",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009134",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Warger",
      "Shauers",
      "Radonjich",
      "Shaoul",
      "Nix",
      "McCoy"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States",
      "Second Circuit",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "W.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "2014",
      "1993",
      "2017",
      "2021",
      "02/24/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 615",
      "574 U.S. 40",
      "1 F.3d 117",
      "41 F.3d 815",
      "275 F. Supp. 3d 420",
      "995 F.3d 32",
      "464 U.S. 555",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009134"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 15 of 49."
}