mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010335.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "12",
    "document_number": "653",
    "date": "04/01/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 12 of 40\n\nwilling to decide the case solely on the evidence before it.\" Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 217 (1982). One important means of ensuring an impartial jury is voir dire examination, which \"expos[es] possible biases, both known and unknown, on the part of potential jurors,\" by eliciting information under oath. McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 554 (1984).\n\nOnce a jury has returned a verdict, a motion to set aside that verdict is \"disfavored\" and the moving party must overcome an \"exacting hurdle\" of proof. United States v. Ventura, No. 09-CR-1015 (JGK), 2014 WL 259655, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2014); see United States v. Ianniello, 866 F.2d 540, 543 (2d Cir. 1989). And while Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 permits a court to \"vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires,\" Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a), the Second Circuit has cautioned district courts that \"such action must be done 'sparingly' and in 'the most extraordinary circumstances.'\" United States v. Archer, 977 F.3d 181, 187 (2d Cir. 2020) (quoting United States v. Ferguson, 246 F.3d 129, 134 (2d Cir. 2001)).\n\nThe parties agree that a defendant's Rule 33 motion premised on a juror's alleged nondisclosure during voir dire is governed by McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984). Maxwell Br. at 22–28, Dkt. No. 642; Gov. Br. at 11, Dkt. No. 643. In McDonough, the Supreme Court held that to obtain a new trial on the basis of juror nondisclosure during voir dire, \"a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.\" McDonough, 464 U.S. at 556; see also United States v. Shaoul, 41 F.3d 811, 815–16 (2d Cir. 1994).\n\n12\nDOJ-OGR-00010335",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 12 of 40",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "willing to decide the case solely on the evidence before it.\" Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 217 (1982). One important means of ensuring an impartial jury is voir dire examination, which \"expos[es] possible biases, both known and unknown, on the part of potential jurors,\" by eliciting information under oath. McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 554 (1984).\n\nOnce a jury has returned a verdict, a motion to set aside that verdict is \"disfavored\" and the moving party must overcome an \"exacting hurdle\" of proof. United States v. Ventura, No. 09-CR-1015 (JGK), 2014 WL 259655, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2014); see United States v. Ianniello, 866 F.2d 540, 543 (2d Cir. 1989). And while Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 permits a court to \"vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires,\" Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a), the Second Circuit has cautioned district courts that \"such action must be done 'sparingly' and in 'the most extraordinary circumstances.'\" United States v. Archer, 977 F.3d 181, 187 (2d Cir. 2020) (quoting United States v. Ferguson, 246 F.3d 129, 134 (2d Cir. 2001)).\n\nThe parties agree that a defendant's Rule 33 motion premised on a juror's alleged nondisclosure during voir dire is governed by McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984). Maxwell Br. at 22–28, Dkt. No. 642; Gov. Br. at 11, Dkt. No. 643. In McDonough, the Supreme Court held that to obtain a new trial on the basis of juror nondisclosure during voir dire, \"a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.\" McDonough, 464 U.S. at 556; see also United States v. Shaoul, 41 F.3d 811, 815–16 (2d Cir. 1994).",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "12",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010335",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Smith",
      "Phillips",
      "Greenwood",
      "Ventura",
      "Ianniello",
      "Archer",
      "Ferguson",
      "Shaoul"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "McDonough Power Equip., Inc.",
      "United States",
      "Supreme Court",
      "Second Circuit"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "1982",
      "1984",
      "Jan. 21, 2014",
      "04/01/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 653",
      "09-CR-1015 (JGK)",
      "Dkt. No. 642",
      "Dkt. No. 643",
      "455 U.S. 209",
      "464 U.S. 548",
      "866 F.2d 540",
      "977 F.3d 181",
      "246 F.3d 129",
      "41 F.3d 811"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is well-formatted and legible. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}