mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021722.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "75",
    "document_number": "79",
    "date": "06/29/2023",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page75 of 93\n\n62\n\nMaxwell. Judge Nathan also correctly rejected Maxwell's \"central argument\" that she should imply or infer bias \"based on the purported similarities between [Juror 50's] personal history and the issues at trial.\" (A.342-43). Judge Nathan explained that she \"need not imagine a wholly hypothetical universe\" to reach that conclusion. (A.344). During voir dire, she asked \"every follow-up question requested by the Defendant with regard to a juror's personal experience with sexual assault, abuse, or harassment; although, for a majority of these eight jurors, the Defendant did not propose any follow-up questions.\" (A.344-45). One prospective juror described her own childhood sexual abuse at an age closer to the victims in this case; another described a friend's recent coercive sexual abuse by a professor. (A.345). Maxwell did not even bring a for-cause challenge as to either. (Id.). Similarly, a for-cause challenge against Juror 50 would not have prevailed.\n\nOn appeal, Maxwell contends that, had Juror 50 answered the questionnaire accurately, it \"clearly\" would have provided a basis for a for-cause challenge.\" (Br.67). In particular, Maxwell challenges Judge Nathan's finding that Juror 50 was credible and unbiased, relying on a few isolated statements drawn from various parts of the hearing transcript and some of his post-verdict statements. (Br.71-72). As described above, Judge Nathan explained how Juror 50's explanation for his erroneous answers was plausible and consistent, and she found him credible after assessing his demeanor through challenging questioning. She also properly disregarded his post-verdict statements about the case, explaining that \"[a] juror's view of a case and defendant would necessarily change after",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page75 of 93",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "62",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Maxwell. Judge Nathan also correctly rejected Maxwell's \"central argument\" that she should imply or infer bias \"based on the purported similarities between [Juror 50's] personal history and the issues at trial.\" (A.342-43). Judge Nathan explained that she \"need not imagine a wholly hypothetical universe\" to reach that conclusion. (A.344). During voir dire, she asked \"every follow-up question requested by the Defendant with regard to a juror's personal experience with sexual assault, abuse, or harassment; although, for a majority of these eight jurors, the Defendant did not propose any follow-up questions.\" (A.344-45). One prospective juror described her own childhood sexual abuse at an age closer to the victims in this case; another described a friend's recent coercive sexual abuse by a professor. (A.345). Maxwell did not even bring a for-cause challenge as to either. (Id.). Similarly, a for-cause challenge against Juror 50 would not have prevailed.\n\nOn appeal, Maxwell contends that, had Juror 50 answered the questionnaire accurately, it \"clearly\" would have provided a basis for a for-cause challenge.\" (Br.67). In particular, Maxwell challenges Judge Nathan's finding that Juror 50 was credible and unbiased, relying on a few isolated statements drawn from various parts of the hearing transcript and some of his post-verdict statements. (Br.71-72). As described above, Judge Nathan explained how Juror 50's explanation for his erroneous answers was plausible and consistent, and she found him credible after assessing his demeanor through challenging questioning. She also properly disregarded his post-verdict statements about the case, explaining that \"[a] juror's view of a case and defendant would necessarily change after",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021722",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ]
}