mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010300.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "10",
    "document_number": "648",
    "date": "03/15/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 648 Filed 03/15/22 Page 10 of 16\nwas being considered for as a juror when he went into jury selection and only learned after sitting in the courtroom for three hours. (Id. at 13:20-21, 17:20-22). He further explained that he “honestly never thought [he] would be chosen to sit on this jury” because of the “sheer volume of people” present for jury selection; he thought “surely they will be interviewing thousands of people. And they ultimately choose twelve people to sit on a jury, and I never thought I would be one of those twelve.” (Id. at 12:3-4, 13:18-25).\nThe hearing held by this Court made clear that Juror 50 did not deliberately lie or engage in deceit in completing the questionnaire. Juror 50 made an “honest mistake.” (Id. at 23:5). The defendant’s motion fails at the first prong of the McDonough test.\nB. The Record Does Not Support a Finding that the Court Would Have Granted a Hypothetical for Cause Challenge\nThe hearing established that Juror 50 harbored no bias, approached his jury service with an open mind, and was committed to deciding the case based on the evidence and the Court’s legal instructions. If Juror 50 had accurately answered the questions relating to sexual abuse in the questionnaire, the Court would have asked Juror 50 follow up questions during voir dire to determine if it would have granted a challenge for cause. The Court asked those questions at the hearing, and Juror 50’s sworn responses made clear that he was a fair and impartial juror who did not harbor any bias and who would not have been excused for cause. Because the defendant cannot establish that Juror 50 was biased, she is not entitled to the extraordinary relief she seeks.\nprospective juror would agree that, if required to serve on a jury, they would rather do so on an interesting case, and surely many prospective jurors would find this case more interesting than a contract dispute or the like. But as Juror 50 made clear repeatedly, including twice in that same colloquy, he “did not set out in order to get on this jury.” (Id. at 14:4-5). Were he attempting to lie or mislead the Court, he surely would have omitted that comment and left his answer at “I did not hope to be on this jury.” (Id. at 14:2). Instead, he gave as complete an answer as he could, demonstrating his candor at the hearing—including his candor that he made no effort to be selected as a juror.\n8\nDOJ-OGR-00010300",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 648 Filed 03/15/22 Page 10 of 16",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "was being considered for as a juror when he went into jury selection and only learned after sitting in the courtroom for three hours. (Id. at 13:20-21, 17:20-22). He further explained that he “honestly never thought [he] would be chosen to sit on this jury” because of the “sheer volume of people” present for jury selection; he thought “surely they will be interviewing thousands of people. And they ultimately choose twelve people to sit on a jury, and I never thought I would be one of those twelve.” (Id. at 12:3-4, 13:18-25).\nThe hearing held by this Court made clear that Juror 50 did not deliberately lie or engage in deceit in completing the questionnaire. Juror 50 made an “honest mistake.” (Id. at 23:5). The defendant’s motion fails at the first prong of the McDonough test.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. The Record Does Not Support a Finding that the Court Would Have Granted a Hypothetical for Cause Challenge",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The hearing established that Juror 50 harbored no bias, approached his jury service with an open mind, and was committed to deciding the case based on the evidence and the Court’s legal instructions. If Juror 50 had accurately answered the questions relating to sexual abuse in the questionnaire, the Court would have asked Juror 50 follow up questions during voir dire to determine if it would have granted a challenge for cause. The Court asked those questions at the hearing, and Juror 50’s sworn responses made clear that he was a fair and impartial juror who did not harbor any bias and who would not have been excused for cause. Because the defendant cannot establish that Juror 50 was biased, she is not entitled to the extraordinary relief she seeks.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "prospective juror would agree that, if required to serve on a jury, they would rather do so on an interesting case, and surely many prospective jurors would find this case more interesting than a contract dispute or the like. But as Juror 50 made clear repeatedly, including twice in that same colloquy, he “did not set out in order to get on this jury.” (Id. at 14:4-5). Were he attempting to lie or mislead the Court, he surely would have omitted that comment and left his answer at “I did not hope to be on this jury.” (Id. at 14:2). Instead, he gave as complete an answer as he could, demonstrating his candor at the hearing—including his candor that he made no effort to be selected as a juror.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "8",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010300",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "03/15/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "648",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010300"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text discusses a juror's responses during voir dire and the defendant's motion regarding the juror's alleged bias. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}