mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021725.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "78",
    "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, Page78 of 93\n65\nherself, with repeated opportunities both before and during the hearing for counsel to suggest questions. And Judge Nathan's decision is reinforced by counsel's requests for \"vexatious, intrusive, unjustified\" subpoenas (SA365), and for questions that swept well beyond Juror 50's ability to be an impartial juror and instead probed deeply into \"other aspects of his life\" (Br.69).\nAs to Juror 50's \"statements to journalists,\" it is not entirely clear which statements Maxwell thinks should have been part of the hearing. The hearing of course covered both the substance of his sexual abuse and the fact of his statements to journalists. (See, e.g., A.275 (asking whether Juror 50 understood \"from your interviews that the fact that you were abused would be a known fact in the world.\")). It appears that, in Maxwell's view, Judge Nathan should have inquired into whether and how his sexual abuse affected the deliberations in the jury room. (Br. 71 (suggesting that Juror 50 \"operate[d] as an unsworn expert on the subject of traumatic memory\")). Acknowledging Rule 606(b)'s prohibition on inquiry into jurors' deliberations and mental processes, Maxwell argues that the exception for \"extraneous prejudicial information [that] was improperly brought to the jury's attention,\" Fed. R. Evid. 606(b)(2)(A), applies here. (Br.71). But Maxwell expressly waived this argument in the District Court, explaining that she \"[d]oes not seek to impeach the verdict based on the content of deliberations\" and \"need not inquire into the content of deliberations to establish her jury bias claim.\" (Dkt.613 at 49-50). And in any event, the exception does not apply because the \"experiences that jurors are understood to bring with them to the jury room\" are \"internal matters\" that do\nDOJ-OGR-00021725",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page78 of 93",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "65\nherself, with repeated opportunities both before and during the hearing for counsel to suggest questions. And Judge Nathan's decision is reinforced by counsel's requests for \"vexatious, intrusive, unjustified\" subpoenas (SA365), and for questions that swept well beyond Juror 50's ability to be an impartial juror and instead probed deeply into \"other aspects of his life\" (Br.69).\nAs to Juror 50's \"statements to journalists,\" it is not entirely clear which statements Maxwell thinks should have been part of the hearing. The hearing of course covered both the substance of his sexual abuse and the fact of his statements to journalists. (See, e.g., A.275 (asking whether Juror 50 understood \"from your interviews that the fact that you were abused would be a known fact in the world.\")). It appears that, in Maxwell's view, Judge Nathan should have inquired into whether and how his sexual abuse affected the deliberations in the jury room. (Br. 71 (suggesting that Juror 50 \"operate[d] as an unsworn expert on the subject of traumatic memory\")). Acknowledging Rule 606(b)'s prohibition on inquiry into jurors' deliberations and mental processes, Maxwell argues that the exception for \"extraneous prejudicial information [that] was improperly brought to the jury's attention,\" Fed. R. Evid. 606(b)(2)(A), applies here. (Br.71). But Maxwell expressly waived this argument in the District Court, explaining that she \"[d]oes not seek to impeach the verdict based on the content of deliberations\" and \"need not inquire into the content of deliberations to establish her jury bias claim.\" (Dkt.613 at 49-50). And in any event, the exception does not apply because the \"experiences that jurors are understood to bring with them to the jury room\" are \"internal matters\" that do",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021725",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Judge Nathan",
      "Juror 50",
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "06/29/2023"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 79",
      "3536060",
      "SA365",
      "Br.69",
      "A.275",
      "Br. 71",
      "Dkt.613",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021725"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and easy to read."
}