mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009163.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "44 of 49",
    "document_number": "615",
    "date": "02/24/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 615 Filed 02/24/22 Page 44 of 49\nhis jury service. These requests similarly call for information barred by Rule 606(b). And the overbreadth of this information is evidenced by the impracticality of production: Even in criminal investigations, the Government cannot obtain such communications with a subpoena; the Government must obtain a search warrant upon a showing of probable cause. See Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2703. In response to such warrants, social media platforms provide the entirety of the electronic communications within the account for the relevant timeframe—often a high volume of material—and the Government reviews the warrant returns to determine what specific materials are responsive. Thus, if the subpoena the defendant requests were issued, the defendant would likely obtain a high volume of Juror 50's irrelevant personal social media communications. A convicted defendant cannot be permitted to invade the privacy of a juror in this manner. Finally, Request 2(c) seeks documentation of the dates on which Juror 50 opened and closed his social media accounts, but as discussed above, the defendant has failed to establish that a hearing is warranted as to Juror 50's statements about his use of social media, so there is no basis to compel the production of such irrelevant information.\n\nIII. The Court Should Provide Juror 50 with a Copy of His Questionnaire Before Any Hearing\n\nOn January 10, 2022, counsel for Juror 50 filed a motion to intervene and a supporting memorandum of law in the case in order to “protect [Juror 50's] privacy rights and his right to avoid self-incrimination, and to further ensure that he will not be prejudiced by any investigation ordered by this Court.” (Juror 50 Mem. at 4). Counsel for Juror 50 requested that he be permitted to intervene, in part, to “assist this Court in determining how to conduct an appropriate inquiry",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 615 Filed 02/24/22 Page 44 of 49",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "his jury service. These requests similarly call for information barred by Rule 606(b). And the overbreadth of this information is evidenced by the impracticality of production: Even in criminal investigations, the Government cannot obtain such communications with a subpoena; the Government must obtain a search warrant upon a showing of probable cause. See Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2703. In response to such warrants, social media platforms provide the entirety of the electronic communications within the account for the relevant timeframe—often a high volume of material—and the Government reviews the warrant returns to determine what specific materials are responsive. Thus, if the subpoena the defendant requests were issued, the defendant would likely obtain a high volume of Juror 50's irrelevant personal social media communications. A convicted defendant cannot be permitted to invade the privacy of a juror in this manner. Finally, Request 2(c) seeks documentation of the dates on which Juror 50 opened and closed his social media accounts, but as discussed above, the defendant has failed to establish that a hearing is warranted as to Juror 50's statements about his use of social media, so there is no basis to compel the production of such irrelevant information.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "III. The Court Should Provide Juror 50 with a Copy of His Questionnaire Before Any Hearing",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "On January 10, 2022, counsel for Juror 50 filed a motion to intervene and a supporting memorandum of law in the case in order to “protect [Juror 50's] privacy rights and his right to avoid self-incrimination, and to further ensure that he will not be prejudiced by any investigation ordered by this Court.” (Juror 50 Mem. at 4). Counsel for Juror 50 requested that he be permitted to intervene, in part, to “assist this Court in determining how to conduct an appropriate inquiry",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "42",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009163",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Juror 50"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "January 10, 2022",
      "02/24/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 615",
      "18 U.S.C. § 2703"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 44 of 49."
}