mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009557.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "16",
    "document_number": "620",
    "date": "02/25/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 16 of 21\nshort of the demanding standard for ordering a post-verdict evidentiary hearing. See Bin Laden, 2005 WL 287404, at *2. Notably, this case is far from United States v. Colombo, where the Second Circuit ordered an evidentiary hearing on the basis of two sworn affidavits that identified another juror by name and described with particularity the alleged misconduct. 869 F.2d 149, 151 (2d Cir. 1989).\nThe Court therefore rejects the Defendant's as-applied constitutional challenge to Rule 606 and further concludes that Rule 606 bars the Court's consideration of Juror 50's statements about the second juror. Even if the Court considered Juror 50's statement about another juror, the evidence would be insufficient to meet the high threshold for an inquiry. Without nonspeculative evidence of misconduct by any juror but Juror 50, the Court restricts the focus of the evidentiary hearing to Juror 50. See Ianniello, 866 F.2d at 544.6\nIV. The nature of the hearing\nA. The Court will examine the witnesses and the parties may submit questions\nIn concluding that an inquiry into Juror 50's conduct is warranted, the Court is mindful that the \"object of the proceeding is to permit the truth to be discovered with the least possible harm to other interests.\" Moten, 582 F.2d at 666. Accordingly, the Court denies the Defendant's request that counsel directly question the juror—a decision committed to this Court's \"sound discretion.\" Id. at 667; see also Ianniello, 866 F.2d at 544 (\"We leave it to the district court's discretion to decide the extent to which the parties may participate in questioning the witnesses, and whether to hold the hearing in camera.\"). The Court will conduct the questioning at the\n6 The Defendant's briefing is unclear as to whether she seeks to question the other 11 jurors only to identify the juror implicated by the news article, or if she would seek to question the other jurors in any event to determine \"what Juror No. 50 said to the other jurors.\" See Maxwell Br. at 49. To the extent the Defendant is requesting the ability to question jurors about what Juror 50 allegedly disclosed during deliberations, that request is denied as it is plainly foreclosed by Rule 606. See also Ianniello, 866 F.2d at 544.\n16\nDOJ-OGR-00009557",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 16 of 21",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "short of the demanding standard for ordering a post-verdict evidentiary hearing. See Bin Laden, 2005 WL 287404, at *2. Notably, this case is far from United States v. Colombo, where the Second Circuit ordered an evidentiary hearing on the basis of two sworn affidavits that identified another juror by name and described with particularity the alleged misconduct. 869 F.2d 149, 151 (2d Cir. 1989).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court therefore rejects the Defendant's as-applied constitutional challenge to Rule 606 and further concludes that Rule 606 bars the Court's consideration of Juror 50's statements about the second juror. Even if the Court considered Juror 50's statement about another juror, the evidence would be insufficient to meet the high threshold for an inquiry. Without nonspeculative evidence of misconduct by any juror but Juror 50, the Court restricts the focus of the evidentiary hearing to Juror 50. See Ianniello, 866 F.2d at 544.6",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "IV. The nature of the hearing",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A. The Court will examine the witnesses and the parties may submit questions",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In concluding that an inquiry into Juror 50's conduct is warranted, the Court is mindful that the \"object of the proceeding is to permit the truth to be discovered with the least possible harm to other interests.\" Moten, 582 F.2d at 666. Accordingly, the Court denies the Defendant's request that counsel directly question the juror—a decision committed to this Court's \"sound discretion.\" Id. at 667; see also Ianniello, 866 F.2d at 544 (\"We leave it to the district court's discretion to decide the extent to which the parties may participate in questioning the witnesses, and whether to hold the hearing in camera.\"). The Court will conduct the questioning at the",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "6 The Defendant's briefing is unclear as to whether she seeks to question the other 11 jurors only to identify the juror implicated by the news article, or if she would seek to question the other jurors in any event to determine \"what Juror No. 50 said to the other jurors.\" See Maxwell Br. at 49. To the extent the Defendant is requesting the ability to question jurors about what Juror 50 allegedly disclosed during deliberations, that request is denied as it is plainly foreclosed by Rule 606. See also Ianniello, 866 F.2d at 544.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "16",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009557",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/25/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 620",
      "2005 WL 287404",
      "869 F.2d 149",
      "582 F.2d 666",
      "866 F.2d 544",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009557"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}