mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021526.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "620",
    "date": "02/25/22",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page96 of 217 SA-350 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 2 of 21 order to resolve the motion at this stage, the Court would have to accept these unsworn statements made to media outlets as true and reach factual determinations that are not available on the current record. Accordingly, a hearing is necessary to resolve the Defendant's motion. The Court concludes, and the Government concedes, that the demanding standard for holding an evidentiary hearing is met as to Juror 50's answer to Question 48 of the questionnaire. The Court further concludes that Juror 50's response to Question 25 is relevant to the inquiry. Following trial, Juror 50 made several direct, unambiguous statements to multiple media outlets about his own experience that do not pertain to jury deliberations and that cast doubt on the accuracy of his responses to Questions 25 and 48. Such statements are \"clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence that a specific, nonspeculative impropriety\"—namely a false statement during jury selection—has occurred. To be clear, the potential impropriety is not that someone with a history of sexual abuse may have served on the jury. Rather, it is the potential failure to respond truthfully to questions during the jury selection process that asked for that material information so that any potential bias could be explored. Conversely, the demanding standard for ordering an evidentiary hearing is not met as to Juror 50's use of social media nor the conduct of any other juror. The Court therefore ORDERS a hearing take place at which the Court will question Juror 50 under oath. The Defendant's request for a broader hearing and pre-hearing discovery is DENIED. I. Background On December 29, 2021, the jury returned a verdict in this case, finding the Defendant guilty of five counts. A week after the jury announced its verdict, on January 5, 2022, the Government informed the Court that a juror had given at least three post-verdict interviews to 2 DOJ-OGR-00021526",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page96 of 217 SA-350 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 2 of 21",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "order to resolve the motion at this stage, the Court would have to accept these unsworn statements made to media outlets as true and reach factual determinations that are not available on the current record. Accordingly, a hearing is necessary to resolve the Defendant's motion. The Court concludes, and the Government concedes, that the demanding standard for holding an evidentiary hearing is met as to Juror 50's answer to Question 48 of the questionnaire. The Court further concludes that Juror 50's response to Question 25 is relevant to the inquiry. Following trial, Juror 50 made several direct, unambiguous statements to multiple media outlets about his own experience that do not pertain to jury deliberations and that cast doubt on the accuracy of his responses to Questions 25 and 48. Such statements are \"clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence that a specific, nonspeculative impropriety\"—namely a false statement during jury selection—has occurred. To be clear, the potential impropriety is not that someone with a history of sexual abuse may have served on the jury. Rather, it is the potential failure to respond truthfully to questions during the jury selection process that asked for that material information so that any potential bias could be explored. Conversely, the demanding standard for ordering an evidentiary hearing is not met as to Juror 50's use of social media nor the conduct of any other juror. The Court therefore ORDERS a hearing take place at which the Court will question Juror 50 under oath. The Defendant's request for a broader hearing and pre-hearing discovery is DENIED.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I. Background On December 29, 2021, the jury returned a verdict in this case, finding the Defendant guilty of five counts. A week after the jury announced its verdict, on January 5, 2022, the Government informed the Court that a juror had given at least three post-verdict interviews to",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2 DOJ-OGR-00021526",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Juror 50",
      "Defendant"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "December 29, 2021",
      "January 5, 2022",
      "06/29/2023",
      "02/25/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 78",
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 620",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021526"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. It discusses the need for an evidentiary hearing regarding Juror 50's responses during jury selection and the Defendant's request for a broader hearing. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}