mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009198.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "8 of 32",
    "document_number": "616",
    "date": "02/24/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 616 Filed 02/24/22 Page 8 of 32\nfor turning a blind eye to Juror No. 50's misconduct and the constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury, and it then proposes a superficial inquiry that would make it all but impossible for Ms. Maxwell to meet the erroneously high burden the government asks this Court to apply.\nYet this Court has \"an unflagging duty . . . to investigate [Ms. Maxwell's] claim.\"2 Properly understood and properly considered, Ms. Maxwell's claim has evident merit. For all the reasons given in the motion and elaborated below, this Court should reject the government's attempt to cripple Ms. Maxwell's vindication of her constitutional right to a trial by a fair and impartial jury.\nThe Facts\nThe government's response relies heavily on the fact that several potential jurors who admitted to being victims of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or harassment were not excluded for case. That is nothing but misdirection.\nJuror No. 50, by contrast, has now admitted to being the victim of child sexual abuse—the very same conduct at issue in this case. And he has also admitted to responding to that abuse in much the same way the alleged victims in this case responded—delaying disclosure, relying on memories that can be replayed like a video, etc. This Court should not be misled by the government's misleading comparisons.\n2 United States v. French, 904 F.3d 111, 117 (1st Cir. 2018) (quotation omitted).\n3\nDOJ-OGR-00009198",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 616 Filed 02/24/22 Page 8 of 32",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "for turning a blind eye to Juror No. 50's misconduct and the constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury, and it then proposes a superficial inquiry that would make it all but impossible for Ms. Maxwell to meet the erroneously high burden the government asks this Court to apply.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Yet this Court has \"an unflagging duty . . . to investigate [Ms. Maxwell's] claim.\"2 Properly understood and properly considered, Ms. Maxwell's claim has evident merit. For all the reasons given in the motion and elaborated below, this Court should reject the government's attempt to cripple Ms. Maxwell's vindication of her constitutional right to a trial by a fair and impartial jury.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Facts",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government's response relies heavily on the fact that several potential jurors who admitted to being victims of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or harassment were not excluded for case. That is nothing but misdirection.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Juror No. 50, by contrast, has now admitted to being the victim of child sexual abuse—the very same conduct at issue in this case. And he has also admitted to responding to that abuse in much the same way the alleged victims in this case responded—delaying disclosure, relying on memories that can be replayed like a video, etc. This Court should not be misled by the government's misleading comparisons.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2 United States v. French, 904 F.3d 111, 117 (1st Cir. 2018) (quotation omitted).",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009198",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Juror No. 50"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court",
      "government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/24/22",
      "2018"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 616",
      "904 F.3d 111",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009198"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text discusses the government's response to a claim made by Ms. Maxwell regarding Juror No. 50's misconduct and the right to a fair and impartial jury. The document includes a reference to a previous court case, United States v. French."
}