mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009707.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "15",
    "document_number": "642",
    "date": "03/11/22",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 642 Filed 03/11/22 Page 15 of 66\n\nIt also appears that Juror No. 50 did not delete his Instagram account, despite what he told the Court, since he posted about his jury service after the verdict was returned.\n\nAt the end of the very brief voir dire examination, the Court asked Juror No. 50 if he had \"[a]ny doubt about [his] ability to\" be fair to both sides. Id. at 134. Juror No. 50 said \"no.\" Id. The Court concluded: \"Other than what I have asked you, do you have any reason to think that you can't be fair and impartial here?\" Id. Juror No. 50 responded, \"I do not.\" Id.\n\nThe Court inquired whether the parties had any follow-up questions. Because Juror No. 50 denied any bias or inability to be fair and impartial, and because his answers to the questionnaire did not raise any red flags about his ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in a case involving alleged sexual assault and sexual abuse, Ms. Maxwell's attorneys did not propose any follow-up questions.\n\nThe lack of follow-up questions for Juror No. 50 contrasts with other jurors who honestly disclosed their history as victims of sexual abuse, sexual assault, or sexual harassment. E.g., TR 11/16/2021, pp 18-19, , 293; TR 11/17/2021, pp , 436-37, 532, 587-88; TR 11/18/2021, pp 635.\n\nAlso, the lack of follow-up questions put to Juror No. 50 contrasts with Juror No. 55, whom the Court struck for cause .\n\n8\nDOJ-OGR-00009707",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 642 Filed 03/11/22 Page 15 of 66",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "It also appears that Juror No. 50 did not delete his Instagram account, despite what he told the Court, since he posted about his jury service after the verdict was returned.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "At the end of the very brief voir dire examination, the Court asked Juror No. 50 if he had \"[a]ny doubt about [his] ability to\" be fair to both sides. Id. at 134. Juror No. 50 said \"no.\" Id. The Court concluded: \"Other than what I have asked you, do you have any reason to think that you can't be fair and impartial here?\" Id. Juror No. 50 responded, \"I do not.\" Id.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court inquired whether the parties had any follow-up questions. Because Juror No. 50 denied any bias or inability to be fair and impartial, and because his answers to the questionnaire did not raise any red flags about his ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in a case involving alleged sexual assault and sexual abuse, Ms. Maxwell's attorneys did not propose any follow-up questions.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The lack of follow-up questions for Juror No. 50 contrasts with other jurors who honestly disclosed their history as victims of sexual abuse, sexual assault, or sexual harassment. E.g., TR 11/16/2021, pp 18-19, , 293; TR 11/17/2021, pp , 436-37, 532, 587-88; TR 11/18/2021, pp 635.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Also, the lack of follow-up questions put to Juror No. 50 contrasts with Juror No. 55, whom the Court struck for cause .",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "8",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009707",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/16/2021",
      "11/17/2021",
      "11/18/2021",
      "03/11/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 642",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009707"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. There are several redacted sections, indicating sensitive or confidential information."
}