mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009739.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "47",
    "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 47 of 66\nturned red, and he grasped for words when the Daily Mail reporter told him about\nQuestion 48. \"Interesting,\" Juror No. 50 said, struggling for an explanation. Unable to\ncredibly explain away his false answer, Juror No. 50 eventually put together a\nnonsensical response: \"No, No! I know my face is red because I can feel the blood but, I\nhonestly—that's why I answered it that way.\"\nSecond, Juror No. 50's attempt to justify his false answer by claiming he \"flew\nthrough\" the questionnaire is not worthy of belief. The questionnaire instructed potential\njurors to \"carefully\" compete it. No time limitation was imposed for completion of the\nquestionnaire. It emphasized that only the parties and the Court would know the identities\nof the jurors. It advised that there are no \"right or wrong\" answers, \"only truthful\nanswers.\" And it assured jurors that their privacy would be respected and that if an\nanswer to any question was embarrassing or caused the juror particular concern, they\ncould alert the Court. The Court must presume Juror No. 50 heeded these instructions.\nIndeed, there is compelling evidence that Juror No. 50 carefully followed these\ninstructions and did not \"fly through\" the questionnaire, as he now claims. For example,\nhe correctly skipped follow-up questions that he did not need to answer if he answered\n\"no\" to the initial question and provided written explanations for some questions when\ncalled to do so. Ex. 1, p 17 (Question 34.a); p 18 (Question 37.a). Juror No. 50 also\ncertified, under the penalty of perjury, that his answers were \"true and correct.\" Ex. 1, p\n27.\nThird, it is simply not credible that Juror No. 50 would not recognize and then not\nremember that the questionnaire asked if he was a victim of sexual assault, sexual abuse,\n40\nDOJ-OGR-00009739",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 642 Filed 03/11/22 Page 47 of 66",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "turned red, and he grasped for words when the Daily Mail reporter told him about\nQuestion 48. \"Interesting,\" Juror No. 50 said, struggling for an explanation. Unable to\ncredibly explain away his false answer, Juror No. 50 eventually put together a\nnonsensical response: \"No, No! I know my face is red because I can feel the blood but, I\nhonestly—that's why I answered it that way.\"\nSecond, Juror No. 50's attempt to justify his false answer by claiming he \"flew\nthrough\" the questionnaire is not worthy of belief. The questionnaire instructed potential\njurors to \"carefully\" compete it. No time limitation was imposed for completion of the\nquestionnaire. It emphasized that only the parties and the Court would know the identities\nof the jurors. It advised that there are no \"right or wrong\" answers, \"only truthful\nanswers.\" And it assured jurors that their privacy would be respected and that if an\nanswer to any question was embarrassing or caused the juror particular concern, they\ncould alert the Court. The Court must presume Juror No. 50 heeded these instructions.\nIndeed, there is compelling evidence that Juror No. 50 carefully followed these\ninstructions and did not \"fly through\" the questionnaire, as he now claims. For example,\nhe correctly skipped follow-up questions that he did not need to answer if he answered\n\"no\" to the initial question and provided written explanations for some questions when\ncalled to do so. Ex. 1, p 17 (Question 34.a); p 18 (Question 37.a). Juror No. 50 also\ncertified, under the penalty of perjury, that his answers were \"true and correct.\" Ex. 1, p\n27.\nThird, it is simply not credible that Juror No. 50 would not recognize and then not\nremember that the questionnaire asked if he was a victim of sexual assault, sexual abuse,",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "40",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009739",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Juror No. 50"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Daily Mail",
      "Court",
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "03/11/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "642",
      "47",
      "66",
      "34.a",
      "37.a",
      "27",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009739"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text discusses Juror No. 50 and their responses to a questionnaire. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}