mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010234.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "19",
    "document_number": "645",
    "date": "03/11/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 645 Filed 03/11/22 Page 19 of 50 19 M38TMAX1\n1 unable to render a verdict. You checked no. 9A said: If yes, please explain. You left that blank. So that question, if a yes response called for explanation, you didn't provide an explanation because you checked no.\n2\n3 The next question 10 asked about principles of law and whether you would accept them if selected to serve on the jury, and you said yes. 10A said: If no, please explain. And you followed that instruction and didn't provide an explanation because you had said yes.\n4\n5 You recall there were a number of questions that sometimes called for explanation and sometimes didn't?\n6 A. Yes, your Honor.\n7\n8 Q. So how did you know whether to include follow-up answers?\n9 A. So these questions are in the beginning where I had more focus than I did at the end and less distractions, so it was easier to follow along, like these are the first few questions.\n10 It is a pretty thick packet, there's a binder of questions, so at this point I was still, I guess, in focus and in the zone and knew how to respond to these questions I guess accurately at this part.\n11 Q. Actually throughout the questionnaire you appeared to have followed the instructions with respect to follow-up questions.\n12 A. Right.\n13 Q. I reviewed a lot of questionnaires. Some people would provide follow-up when it wasn't called for or not provide\n14 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n15 DOJ-OGR-00010234",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 645 Filed 03/11/22 Page 19 of 50 19 M38TMAX1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "unable to render a verdict. You checked no. 9A said: If yes, please explain. You left that blank. So that question, if a yes response called for explanation, you didn't provide an explanation because you checked no.\nThe next question 10 asked about principles of law and whether you would accept them if selected to serve on the jury, and you said yes. 10A said: If no, please explain. And you followed that instruction and didn't provide an explanation because you had said yes.\nYou recall there were a number of questions that sometimes called for explanation and sometimes didn't?\nA. Yes, your Honor.\nQ. So how did you know whether to include follow-up answers?\nA. So these questions are in the beginning where I had more focus than I did at the end and less distractions, so it was easier to follow along, like these are the first few questions.\nIt is a pretty thick packet, there's a binder of questions, so at this point I was still, I guess, in focus and in the zone and knew how to respond to these questions I guess accurately at this part.\nQ. Actually throughout the questionnaire you appeared to have followed the instructions with respect to follow-up questions.\nA. Right.\nQ. I reviewed a lot of questionnaires. Some people would provide follow-up when it wasn't called for or not provide",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010234",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "03/11/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "645",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010234"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}