mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00020981.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "38",
    "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, Page155 of 221\nA-355\nCase 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 38 of 40\n3. The Court rejects the Defendant's additional post-hearing argument that Juror 50 was biased because he failed to follow instructions.\nIn her post-hearing briefing, the Defendant argues that Juror 50's testimony that he was \"absolutely not\" concerned with following the Court's instructions when filling out the questionnaire is an additional ground for concluding that Juror 50 was unable to serve as an unbiased juror. Maxwell Post-Hearing Br. at 11-12 (quoting Hearing Tr. at 18). The Court disagrees.\nJuror 50's testimony established that his lack of diligence was limited to the questionnaire session. Juror 50 showed up for trial on time every day and appeared to the Court that he was attentive throughout trial. There is no indication that Juror 50 failed to follow this Court's instructions during voir dire, trial, or deliberations. Juror 50 explained that he was unconcerned with following the Court's instructions while completing the questionnaire because he was \"super distracted\" and believed that there was no possibility that he would be selected for the jury. Hearing Tr. at 40. Voir dire, he testified, was a \"different situation.\" Id. at 41. When he answered the Court's questions in person at voir dire, he had not been \"sitting there for hours . . . thinking about [his] ex.\" Id. He felt confident that he accurately answered all of the Court's questions. This included affirming that he was able to follow the Court's instructions as to the presumption of innocence and the law generally, the prohibition on consuming media on the case or any other extraneous information, and his ability to put any prior knowledge to the side and decide the case based on the evidence, or lack of evidence, presented at trial. Voir Dire Tr. at 128-31. Under oath, he testified that although he \"can become distracted,\" that \"had no effect\" on him serving and \"listening to all the evidence given during the trial.\" Hearing Tr. at 41. The Court confirmed that Juror 50 \"carefully\" followed the Court's instructions during voir dire and trial. Id.\n38\nDOJ-OGR-00020981",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 58 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page155 of 221",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A-355",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 38 of 40",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3. The Court rejects the Defendant's additional post-hearing argument that Juror 50 was biased because he failed to follow instructions.\nIn her post-hearing briefing, the Defendant argues that Juror 50's testimony that he was \"absolutely not\" concerned with following the Court's instructions when filling out the questionnaire is an additional ground for concluding that Juror 50 was unable to serve as an unbiased juror. Maxwell Post-Hearing Br. at 11-12 (quoting Hearing Tr. at 18). The Court disagrees.\nJuror 50's testimony established that his lack of diligence was limited to the questionnaire session. Juror 50 showed up for trial on time every day and appeared to the Court that he was attentive throughout trial. There is no indication that Juror 50 failed to follow this Court's instructions during voir dire, trial, or deliberations. Juror 50 explained that he was unconcerned with following the Court's instructions while completing the questionnaire because he was \"super distracted\" and believed that there was no possibility that he would be selected for the jury. Hearing Tr. at 40. Voir dire, he testified, was a \"different situation.\" Id. at 41. When he answered the Court's questions in person at voir dire, he had not been \"sitting there for hours . . . thinking about [his] ex.\" Id. He felt confident that he accurately answered all of the Court's questions. This included affirming that he was able to follow the Court's instructions as to the presumption of innocence and the law generally, the prohibition on consuming media on the case or any other extraneous information, and his ability to put any prior knowledge to the side and decide the case based on the evidence, or lack of evidence, presented at trial. Voir Dire Tr. at 128-31. Under oath, he testified that although he \"can become distracted,\" that \"had no effect\" on him serving and \"listening to all the evidence given during the trial.\" Hearing Tr. at 41. The Court confirmed that Juror 50 \"carefully\" followed the Court's instructions during voir dire and trial. Id.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "38",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00020981",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Court",
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/28/2023",
      "04/01/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 58",
      "3475901",
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 653",
      "DOJ-OGR-00020981"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document related to a specific case. The text is well-formatted and printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The content discusses the court's decision regarding Juror 50's bias and ability to follow instructions."
}