mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009216.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "26 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 26 of 32\n2. The questioning should encompass any topic on which actual bias may be based.\nMoreover, the questioning should be significantly broader than proposed by the government. Although Ms. Maxwell need not prove Juror No. 50's intent, whether he acted deliberately is \"is among the 'factors to be considered' in the ultimate determination of bias. . .\" Greer, 285 F.3d at 173. An analysis of Juror No. 50's intent requires consideration of the totality of the circumstances. And if only because Juror No. 50 has a pattern and practice of giving false answers to the Court, Ms. Maxwell is not required to accept any post-hoc assertion by him that he did not act deliberately. Cf. United States v. James, 609 F.2d 36, 46 (2d Cir. 1979) (\"[W]hen attempting to show bias or interest, as opposed to bad reputation, the examiner is not bound to accept the witness' answer, but is free to call additional witnesses for impeachment.\")\nThe government disingenuously suggests that the Court\n21\nDOJ-OGR-00009216",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 616 Filed 02/24/22 Page 26 of 32",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2. The questioning should encompass any topic on which actual bias may be based.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Moreover, the questioning should be significantly broader than proposed by the government. Although Ms. Maxwell need not prove Juror No. 50's intent, whether he acted deliberately is \"is among the 'factors to be considered' in the ultimate determination of bias. . .\" Greer, 285 F.3d at 173. An analysis of Juror No. 50's intent requires consideration of the totality of the circumstances. And if only because Juror No. 50 has a pattern and practice of giving false answers to the Court, Ms. Maxwell is not required to accept any post-hoc assertion by him that he did not act deliberately. Cf. United States v. James, 609 F.2d 36, 46 (2d Cir. 1979) (\"[W]hen attempting to show bias or interest, as opposed to bad reputation, the examiner is not bound to accept the witness' answer, but is free to call additional witnesses for impeachment.\")",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government disingenuously suggests that the Court",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "21",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009216",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Juror No. 50"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court",
      "government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/24/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 616",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009216"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with redactions. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps."
}