mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009802.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "document_number": "643",
    "date": "03/11/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 643 Filed 03/11/22 Page 4 of 49\ndiscovery and an expansive hearing—requests that present exactly the sort of “evil consequences” of which the Second Circuit has warned: “subjecting juries to harassment, inhibiting juryroom deliberation, burdening courts with meritless applications, increasing temptation for jury tampering and creating uncertainty in jury verdicts.” United States v. Ianniello, 866 F.2d 540, 543 (2d Cir. 1989). While the Government consents to a hearing, its scope “should be limited to only what is absolutely necessary to determine the facts with precision.” Id. at 544. Such a hearing should be limited to questioning of Juror 50 by the Court, in order to determine: (1) whether he deliberately lied in response to Question 48, regarding being a victim of sexual abuse, and, if so, (2) whether the Court would have struck Juror 50 for cause if he had accurately responded to that question, i.e., based on a finding that he could not be fair and impartial.\n\nI. BACKGROUND\n\n1. The Jury Selection Process\nBefore trial, the jury department for the Southern District of New York conducted five sessions over the course of November 4, 5, and 12, 2021 during which 694 jurors completed a juror questionnaire approved by the Court. Nov. 15, 2021 Tr. at 2:20-21. The juror questionnaire was 29 pages and comprised of 51 questions, many of which contained subparts. The parties reviewed the completed questionnaires and then conferred, submitting a joint list delineating four categories of prospective jurors: (1) prospective jurors that both the Government and defense counsel agreed should proceed to voir dire; (2) prospective jurors that both the Government and defense counsel agreed should be excused or struck for cause; (3) prospective jurors that defense counsel, but not the Government, believed should be excused or struck for cause; and (4) prospective jurors that the Government, but not defense counsel, believed should be excused or struck for cause. Id. at 2:22-3:4. In addition, the Court sent the parties a list of 13 prospective",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 643 Filed 03/11/22 Page 4 of 49",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "discovery and an expansive hearing—requests that present exactly the sort of “evil consequences” of which the Second Circuit has warned: “subjecting juries to harassment, inhibiting juryroom deliberation, burdening courts with meritless applications, increasing temptation for jury tampering and creating uncertainty in jury verdicts.” United States v. Ianniello, 866 F.2d 540, 543 (2d Cir. 1989). While the Government consents to a hearing, its scope “should be limited to only what is absolutely necessary to determine the facts with precision.” Id. at 544. Such a hearing should be limited to questioning of Juror 50 by the Court, in order to determine: (1) whether he deliberately lied in response to Question 48, regarding being a victim of sexual abuse, and, if so, (2) whether the Court would have struck Juror 50 for cause if he had accurately responded to that question, i.e., based on a finding that he could not be fair and impartial.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I. BACKGROUND",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1. The Jury Selection Process",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Before trial, the jury department for the Southern District of New York conducted five sessions over the course of November 4, 5, and 12, 2021 during which 694 jurors completed a juror questionnaire approved by the Court. Nov. 15, 2021 Tr. at 2:20-21. The juror questionnaire was 29 pages and comprised of 51 questions, many of which contained subparts. The parties reviewed the completed questionnaires and then conferred, submitting a joint list delineating four categories of prospective jurors: (1) prospective jurors that both the Government and defense counsel agreed should proceed to voir dire; (2) prospective jurors that both the Government and defense counsel agreed should be excused or struck for cause; (3) prospective jurors that defense counsel, but not the Government, believed should be excused or struck for cause; and (4) prospective jurors that the Government, but not defense counsel, believed should be excused or struck for cause. Id. at 2:22-3:4. In addition, the Court sent the parties a list of 13 prospective",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009802",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Second Circuit",
      "Government",
      "Court",
      "jury department for the Southern District of New York"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Southern District of New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "03/11/22",
      "November 4, 5, and 12, 2021",
      "Nov. 15, 2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 643",
      "866 F.2d 540",
      "2d Cir. 1989",
      "Question 48",
      "Juror 50",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009802"
    ]
  },
  "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."
}