mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00020966.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "23",
    "document_number": "653",
    "date": "04/01/22",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page140 of 221\nA-340\nCase 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 23 of 40\nJuror 50 \"was brave enough to come forward,\" to which Juror 50 responded by \"thank[ing] her for sharing her[] [story] as well.\" Hearing Tr. at 43. He explained that he had \"randomly seen\" Farmer's post and \"felt like [he] wanted to comment.\" Id. That comment was unlikely to be seen by Juror 50's friends and family, he speculated, because at the time he had only \"two followers,\" which \"were random things,\" and he did not \"normally use\" Twitter. Id. The Court concludes that Juror 50's comment to Annie Farmer on Twitter, made in January 2022, does not provide a basis to question his testimony that as of November 4, 2021, he did not tell many people about his sexual abuse.\nAt bottom, based on Juror 50's demeanor and consistent responses while testifying under oath pursuant to a grant of immunity, the Court finds Juror 50 credible. His failure to attend with diligence and care to the questions on the jury selection questionnaire is frustrating and regrettable, but it was not motivated by intentional deception. In light of his testimony, the Court finds that Juror 50's answers to Questions 25, 48, and 49 were not deliberately incorrect.\nB. McDonough Prong Two\nAssuming without deciding that Juror 50's inadvertently inaccurate responses satisfy the first prong of McDonough, the Defendant has, in any event, not established that the Court would have excused Juror 50 for cause if he had answered the questions during jury selection accurately. See McCoy, 995 F.3d at 46. At the hearing, the Court asked Juror 50 the same set of questions that was asked of all prospective jurors during voir dire who indicated prior personal experience with sexual abuse. Juror 50's credible responses to those questions under oath at the hearing established that he would not have been struck for cause if he had provided accurate responses to the questionnaire.\n23\nDOJ-OGR-00020966",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page140 of 221",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A-340",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 23 of 40",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Juror 50 \"was brave enough to come forward,\" to which Juror 50 responded by \"thank[ing] her for sharing her[] [story] as well.\" Hearing Tr. at 43. He explained that he had \"randomly seen\" Farmer's post and \"felt like [he] wanted to comment.\" Id. That comment was unlikely to be seen by Juror 50's friends and family, he speculated, because at the time he had only \"two followers,\" which \"were random things,\" and he did not \"normally use\" Twitter. Id. The Court concludes that Juror 50's comment to Annie Farmer on Twitter, made in January 2022, does not provide a basis to question his testimony that as of November 4, 2021, he did not tell many people about his sexual abuse.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "At bottom, based on Juror 50's demeanor and consistent responses while testifying under oath pursuant to a grant of immunity, the Court finds Juror 50 credible. His failure to attend with diligence and care to the questions on the jury selection questionnaire is frustrating and regrettable, but it was not motivated by intentional deception. In light of his testimony, the Court finds that Juror 50's answers to Questions 25, 48, and 49 were not deliberately incorrect.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. McDonough Prong Two",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Assuming without deciding that Juror 50's inadvertently inaccurate responses satisfy the first prong of McDonough, the Defendant has, in any event, not established that the Court would have excused Juror 50 for cause if he had answered the questions during jury selection accurately. See McCoy, 995 F.3d at 46. At the hearing, the Court asked Juror 50 the same set of questions that was asked of all prospective jurors during voir dire who indicated prior personal experience with sexual abuse. Juror 50's credible responses to those questions under oath at the hearing established that he would not have been struck for cause if he had provided accurate responses to the questionnaire.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "23",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00020966",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Juror 50",
      "Annie Farmer"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "November 4, 2021",
      "January 2022",
      "04/01/22",
      "02/28/2023"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 58",
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 653",
      "DOJ-OGR-00020966"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document related to a case involving Juror 50 and Annie Farmer. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes."
}