mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009820.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "22",
    "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 22 of 49\n\nare few aspects of a jury trial where [the Second Circuit] would be less inclined to disturb a trial judge's exercise of discretion, absent clear abuse, then in ruling on challenges for cause in the empanelling of a jury.\" Id. (quoting Greer, 285 F.3d at 172). This is because the district court \"observes the jury on a day to day basis\" and therefore \"is in the best position to sense the atmosphere of the courtroom.\" Greer, 285 F.3d at 171 (quotations and citations omitted).\n\nHow, then, would the Court have ruled on a hypothetical for cause challenge if Juror 50 had disclosed that he was a survivor of sexual abuse? The Court's decisions with respect to similarly situated jurors provide clear evidence. Of the 58 jurors who were ultimately qualified, eight jurors disclosed that they themselves had been a victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault. With respect to each, the Court asked a few follow-up questions (and sometimes only one question), focusing on the ultimate issue of whether the juror could be fair and impartial notwithstanding the juror's experience. (See Nov. 16, 2021 Tr. at 18-19, 52-57, 200, 207-08, 259, 293, 532, 635). In each case, the juror affirmed that he or she could be fair, and not only did the Court not strike the juror for cause, neither party even moved to do so on these grounds. For good reason: People who have experienced sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault can be fair and impartial jurors.\n\nThus, if Juror 50 had disclosed a history of sexual abuse, the Court would not have immediately granted a challenge for cause, as the defendant's brief suggests. Instead, the Court properly would have asked follow-up questions designed to determine whether Juror 50 could be fair and impartial notwithstanding that experience and could decide the case based on the evidence and the law. Here, because Juror 50 did not disclose any history of sexual abuse, the Court did not have occasion to ask such follow-up questions. Accordingly, the Government believes that a limited hearing is warranted to ask Juror 50 such questions. If Juror 50 credibly states that he\n\n20\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009820",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 643 Filed 03/11/22 Page 22 of 49",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "are few aspects of a jury trial where [the Second Circuit] would be less inclined to disturb a trial judge's exercise of discretion, absent clear abuse, then in ruling on challenges for cause in the empanelling of a jury.\" Id. (quoting Greer, 285 F.3d at 172). This is because the district court \"observes the jury on a day to day basis\" and therefore \"is in the best position to sense the atmosphere of the courtroom.\" Greer, 285 F.3d at 171 (quotations and citations omitted).\n\nHow, then, would the Court have ruled on a hypothetical for cause challenge if Juror 50 had disclosed that he was a survivor of sexual abuse? The Court's decisions with respect to similarly situated jurors provide clear evidence. Of the 58 jurors who were ultimately qualified, eight jurors disclosed that they themselves had been a victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault. With respect to each, the Court asked a few follow-up questions (and sometimes only one question), focusing on the ultimate issue of whether the juror could be fair and impartial notwithstanding the juror's experience. (See Nov. 16, 2021 Tr. at 18-19, 52-57, 200, 207-08, 259, 293, 532, 635). In each case, the juror affirmed that he or she could be fair, and not only did the Court not strike the juror for cause, neither party even moved to do so on these grounds. For good reason: People who have experienced sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault can be fair and impartial jurors.\n\nThus, if Juror 50 had disclosed a history of sexual abuse, the Court would not have immediately granted a challenge for cause, as the defendant's brief suggests. Instead, the Court properly would have asked follow-up questions designed to determine whether Juror 50 could be fair and impartial notwithstanding that experience and could decide the case based on the evidence and the law. Here, because Juror 50 did not disclose any history of sexual abuse, the Court did not have occasion to ask such follow-up questions. Accordingly, the Government believes that a limited hearing is warranted to ask Juror 50 such questions. If Juror 50 credibly states that he",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "20",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009820",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Second Circuit",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "03/11/22",
      "Nov. 16, 2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 643",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009820"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text discusses the process of jury selection and the potential for jurors to be challenged for cause due to their experiences with sexual abuse. The document includes citations to legal precedents and references to specific jurors and court transcripts."
}