mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009548.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "7",
    "document_number": "620",
    "date": "02/25/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 7 of 21\ndeliberations.\" Maxwell Reply Br. at 8. This argument is wrong, as \"the ultimate purpose of the [requested] post-trial evidentiary hearing is to set aside a jury verdict.\" Ventura, 2014 WL 259655, at *3. And \"there is no discernible reason to apply a different general standard to new trial motions based on juror misconduct than to those premised on any other reason.\" United States v. Guzman Loera, No. 09-CR-0466 (BMC), 2019 WL 2869081, at *5 n.5 (E.D.N.Y. July 3, 2019), aff'd, 24 F.4th 144 (2d Cir. 2022). \"[E]ven though there are additional considerations . . . when ruling on an evidentiary hearing and new trial motion premised upon allegations of juror misconduct, these are the overarching legal standards applicable to all Rule 33 motions, including when juror misconduct is at issue.\" Id.\n\nIf a hearing is held, \"its scope should be limited to only what is absolutely necessary to determine the facts with precision.\" Ianniello, 866 F.2d at 544. \"Therefore, in the course of a post-verdict inquiry . . ., when and if it becomes apparent that the above-described reasonable grounds to suspect prejudicial jury impropriety do not exist, the inquiry should end.\" Moon, 718 F.2d at 1234. The Court has discretion to structure the hearing and to determine what testimony is needed. Ianniello, 866 F.2d at 544.\n\nB. The scope of the hearing\n\nThe Court will conduct an evidentiary hearing on whether Juror 50 provided false answers on the questionnaire, the explanation for those answers, and how Juror 50 would have responded to follow-up questions if accurate answers had been provided. The Government acknowledges that Juror 50's answer to Question 48 satisfies the demanding standard for an evidentiary hearing under McDonough. Gov. Br. at 33. The Court agrees. Question 48 asked jurors:\n\nHave you or a friend or family member ever been the victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault? (This includes actual or attempted",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 7 of 21",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "deliberations.\" Maxwell Reply Br. at 8. This argument is wrong, as \"the ultimate purpose of the [requested] post-trial evidentiary hearing is to set aside a jury verdict.\" Ventura, 2014 WL 259655, at *3. And \"there is no discernible reason to apply a different general standard to new trial motions based on juror misconduct than to those premised on any other reason.\" United States v. Guzman Loera, No. 09-CR-0466 (BMC), 2019 WL 2869081, at *5 n.5 (E.D.N.Y. July 3, 2019), aff'd, 24 F.4th 144 (2d Cir. 2022). \"[E]ven though there are additional considerations . . . when ruling on an evidentiary hearing and new trial motion premised upon allegations of juror misconduct, these are the overarching legal standards applicable to all Rule 33 motions, including when juror misconduct is at issue.\" Id.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "If a hearing is held, \"its scope should be limited to only what is absolutely necessary to determine the facts with precision.\" Ianniello, 866 F.2d at 544. \"Therefore, in the course of a post-verdict inquiry . . ., when and if it becomes apparent that the above-described reasonable grounds to suspect prejudicial jury impropriety do not exist, the inquiry should end.\" Moon, 718 F.2d at 1234. The Court has discretion to structure the hearing and to determine what testimony is needed. Ianniello, 866 F.2d at 544.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. The scope of the hearing",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court will conduct an evidentiary hearing on whether Juror 50 provided false answers on the questionnaire, the explanation for those answers, and how Juror 50 would have responded to follow-up questions if accurate answers had been provided. The Government acknowledges that Juror 50's answer to Question 48 satisfies the demanding standard for an evidentiary hearing under McDonough. Gov. Br. at 33. The Court agrees. Question 48 asked jurors:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Have you or a friend or family member ever been the victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault? (This includes actual or attempted",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "7",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009548",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Guzman Loera",
      "Ianniello",
      "Moon",
      "Juror 50",
      "McDonough"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "E.D.N.Y.",
      "2d Cir."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/25/22",
      "July 3, 2019"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 620",
      "09-CR-0466 (BMC)",
      "2014 WL 259655",
      "2019 WL 2869081",
      "24 F.4th 144",
      "866 F.2d 544",
      "718 F.2d 1234",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009548"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing the scope of an evidentiary hearing regarding juror misconduct."
}