mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009549.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "8",
    "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 8 of 21\n\nsexual assault or other unwanted sexual advance, including by a stranger, acquaintance, supervisor, teacher, or family member.)\n\nDkt. No. 462 at 24. In response to that question, Juror 50 checked the box for “No,” not the box for either “Yes (self)” or “Yes (friend or family member).” But in several public statements made to media outlets after the trial, including interviews in The Independent and The Daily Mail dated January 5, 2022, Juror 50 stated that he was sexually abused as a minor. The statements are direct, unambiguous, and made by Juror 50 himself to multiple media outlets. Moreover, the statements themselves describe Juror 50’s own experience.4 They constitute “clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence that a specific, nonspeculative impropriety has occurred,” and so warrant an evidentiary hearing. Baker, 99 F.3d at 130.\n\nAlthough the Court does not decide whether the threshold to hold a hearing based on Question 25 alone has been met, because the Court will hold a hearing on Juror 50’s answer to Question 48 and because Question 48 and 25 are sufficiently related, the Court will inquire into Juror 50’s answer to Question 25. Question 25 asked jurors:\n\nHave you, or any of your relatives or close friends, ever been a victim of a crime?\n\nDkt. No. 462 at 13. Again, Juror 50 checked the box for “No,” and not the box for either “Yes (self)” or “Yes (friend or family member).” But Juror 50’s post-trial statements, if true, may describe criminal conduct of which he was the victim. Therefore, Juror 50’s answer to Question 25 is sufficiently related to the answer to Question 48 and so the Court will also inquire as to Question 25 at an evidentiary hearing. See Baker, 99 F.3d at 130.\n\n4 The articles additionally state that Juror 50 shared this experience with the jury during deliberations. The Court is prohibited by Rule 606 from considering that Juror 50 also told this information to the jury. That Juror 50 revealed that he also disclosed this information to the jury does not prohibit the Court from considering Juror 50’s independent statements made to a reporter about his own experience.\n\n8\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009549",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 8 of 21",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "sexual assault or other unwanted sexual advance, including by a stranger, acquaintance, supervisor, teacher, or family member.)\n\nDkt. No. 462 at 24. In response to that question, Juror 50 checked the box for “No,” not the box for either “Yes (self)” or “Yes (friend or family member).” But in several public statements made to media outlets after the trial, including interviews in The Independent and The Daily Mail dated January 5, 2022, Juror 50 stated that he was sexually abused as a minor. The statements are direct, unambiguous, and made by Juror 50 himself to multiple media outlets. Moreover, the statements themselves describe Juror 50’s own experience.4 They constitute “clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence that a specific, nonspeculative impropriety has occurred,” and so warrant an evidentiary hearing. Baker, 99 F.3d at 130.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Although the Court does not decide whether the threshold to hold a hearing based on Question 25 alone has been met, because the Court will hold a hearing on Juror 50’s answer to Question 48 and because Question 48 and 25 are sufficiently related, the Court will inquire into Juror 50’s answer to Question 25. Question 25 asked jurors:\n\nHave you, or any of your relatives or close friends, ever been a victim of a crime?\n\nDkt. No. 462 at 13. Again, Juror 50 checked the box for “No,” and not the box for either “Yes (self)” or “Yes (friend or family member).” But Juror 50’s post-trial statements, if true, may describe criminal conduct of which he was the victim. Therefore, Juror 50’s answer to Question 25 is sufficiently related to the answer to Question 48 and so the Court will also inquire as to Question 25 at an evidentiary hearing. See Baker, 99 F.3d at 130.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4 The articles additionally state that Juror 50 shared this experience with the jury during deliberations. The Court is prohibited by Rule 606 from considering that Juror 50 also told this information to the jury. That Juror 50 revealed that he also disclosed this information to the jury does not prohibit the Court from considering Juror 50’s independent statements made to a reporter about his own experience.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "8",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009549",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Juror 50"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "The Independent",
      "The Daily Mail"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "January 5, 2022",
      "02/25/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 620",
      "Dkt. No. 462",
      "Rule 606",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009549"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. It discusses the responses of Juror 50 to certain questions during the jury selection process and his subsequent public statements about being a victim of sexual abuse. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}