mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021535.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "11",
    "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, Page105 of 217\nSA-359\nCase 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 11 of 21\n\nFirst, the news article upon which the Defendant relies does not warrant a hearing. Baker, 899 F.3d at 130. The article includes a short, non-detailed mention of an anonymous juror. As the Second Circuit recently held in affirming the denial of a hearing after a high-profile trial, \"the unsworn, uncorroborated statements that one unidentified juror made to a magazine reporter do not constitute the 'clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence'\" of misconduct that requires a hearing. United States v. Guzman Loera, 24 F.4th 144, 161 (2d Cir. 2022) (quoting Moon, 718 F.2d at 1234). Another court in this circuit held that a New York Times article that, in a single sentence, alleged misconduct by an unidentified juror was insufficient to justify a hearing. United States v. Bin Laden, No. S7R 98-CR-1023 (KTD), 2005 WL 287404, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2005), aff'd sub nom. In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in E. Afr., 552 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2008) (\"This single sentence, an unsworn snippet of hearsay within a newspaper article, is far less substantial than the sworn affidavits present in cases where evidentiary hearings have been ordered.\").\n\nOther courts have also concluded that unsworn, hearsay, and/or anonymous reports of juror misconduct are not the clear, strong, and nonspeculative evidence required for a hearing. See, e.g., King v. United States, 576 F.2d 432, 438 (2d Cir. 1978) (affirming the denial of a hearing where the defendant presented \"weakly authenticated, vague, and speculative material as to one juror,\" even where that juror was not anonymous); United States v. Wilbern, 484 F. Supp. 3d 79, 87 (W.D.N.Y. 2020) (finding a \"double hearsay\" report of misconduct inadequate to justify a hearing); Stewart, 317 F. Supp. 2d at 438 (denying the defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing where the defendant's support, including post-trial media interviews, \"amount[s] to little more than hearsay, speculation, and in one instance, vague allegations made by a person who refused to identify himself\"). Accordingly, the New York Times article is an\n\n11\n\nDOJ-OGR-00021535",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page105 of 217\nSA-359",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 11 of 21",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "First, the news article upon which the Defendant relies does not warrant a hearing. Baker, 899 F.3d at 130. The article includes a short, non-detailed mention of an anonymous juror. As the Second Circuit recently held in affirming the denial of a hearing after a high-profile trial, \"the unsworn, uncorroborated statements that one unidentified juror made to a magazine reporter do not constitute the 'clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence'\" of misconduct that requires a hearing. United States v. Guzman Loera, 24 F.4th 144, 161 (2d Cir. 2022) (quoting Moon, 718 F.2d at 1234). Another court in this circuit held that a New York Times article that, in a single sentence, alleged misconduct by an unidentified juror was insufficient to justify a hearing. United States v. Bin Laden, No. S7R 98-CR-1023 (KTD), 2005 WL 287404, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2005), aff'd sub nom. In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in E. Afr., 552 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2008) (\"This single sentence, an unsworn snippet of hearsay within a newspaper article, is far less substantial than the sworn affidavits present in cases where evidentiary hearings have been ordered.\").\n\nOther courts have also concluded that unsworn, hearsay, and/or anonymous reports of juror misconduct are not the clear, strong, and nonspeculative evidence required for a hearing. See, e.g., King v. United States, 576 F.2d 432, 438 (2d Cir. 1978) (affirming the denial of a hearing where the defendant presented \"weakly authenticated, vague, and speculative material as to one juror,\" even where that juror was not anonymous); United States v. Wilbern, 484 F. Supp. 3d 79, 87 (W.D.N.Y. 2020) (finding a \"double hearsay\" report of misconduct inadequate to justify a hearing); Stewart, 317 F. Supp. 2d at 438 (denying the defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing where the defendant's support, including post-trial media interviews, \"amount[s] to little more than hearsay, speculation, and in one instance, vague allegations made by a person who refused to identify himself\"). Accordingly, the New York Times article is an",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "11",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021535",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "New York Times"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/25/22",
      "06/29/2023",
      "Feb. 7, 2005"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 78",
      "3536039",
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 620",
      "S7R 98-CR-1023 (KTD)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021535"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a high-profile case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}