mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010359.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "36",
    "document_number": "653",
    "date": "04/01/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 36 of 40\n\npersonal memories, some from decades earlier and some involving sensitive or tragic events. So long as jurors can be fair and impartial and decide the case based solely on the evidence and the law as instructed, then it is those “very human elements that constitute one of the strengths of our jury system, and we cannot and should not excommunicate them from jury deliberations.” U.S. ex rel. Owen, 435 F.2d at 818. In any event, Rule 606(b) bars the Court from relying on these statements because they pertain to Juror 50’s “mental processes concerning the verdict or indictment.” Fed. R. Evid. 606(b)(1). “Parsing how jurors considered the evidence or their mental states while hearing testimony is exactly what Tanner and the plain text of Rule 606(b) seek to prevent.” United States v. Leung, 796 F.3d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir. 2015) (cited favorably by United States v. Baker, 899 F.3d 123, 132 (2d Cir. 2018)); see also United States v. Abcasis, 811 F. Supp. 828, 834 (E.D.N.Y. 1992) (Rule 606 does not permit inquiry into jurors’ discussions or “reactions to the evidence as it developed” (cleaned up)).\n\nFinally, the Defendant argues that Juror 50’s statements about his “healing process” and his hearing testimony as to Question 25 “reveal just how deeply the trauma affected him and continues to affect him.” Maxwell Post-Hearing Br. at 9. The Court is unpersuaded. First, at the March 8 hearing, the Court rejected the Defendant’s proposed follow-up questions on Juror 50’s “healing process” because the Defendant had not proposed comparable questions during the voir dire process for other prospective jurors who indicated a personal history of sexual abuse on their questionnaires. Hearing Tr. at 28–29. Moreover, that an individual has undergone a “healing process” at some point in his life does not evidence that the experience interferes with his ability to be fair and impartial. Juror 50 credibly testified that his sexual abuse is not usually on his mind, that the subject matter would not upset him in a way that would distract him from his duty, and that he would not think about his own experience in a way that\n\n36\n\nDOJ-OGR-00010359",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 36 of 40",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "personal memories, some from decades earlier and some involving sensitive or tragic events. So long as jurors can be fair and impartial and decide the case based solely on the evidence and the law as instructed, then it is those “very human elements that constitute one of the strengths of our jury system, and we cannot and should not excommunicate them from jury deliberations.” U.S. ex rel. Owen, 435 F.2d at 818. In any event, Rule 606(b) bars the Court from relying on these statements because they pertain to Juror 50’s “mental processes concerning the verdict or indictment.” Fed. R. Evid. 606(b)(1). “Parsing how jurors considered the evidence or their mental states while hearing testimony is exactly what Tanner and the plain text of Rule 606(b) seek to prevent.” United States v. Leung, 796 F.3d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir. 2015) (cited favorably by United States v. Baker, 899 F.3d 123, 132 (2d Cir. 2018)); see also United States v. Abcasis, 811 F. Supp. 828, 834 (E.D.N.Y. 1992) (Rule 606 does not permit inquiry into jurors’ discussions or “reactions to the evidence as it developed” (cleaned up)).",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Finally, the Defendant argues that Juror 50’s statements about his “healing process” and his hearing testimony as to Question 25 “reveal just how deeply the trauma affected him and continues to affect him.” Maxwell Post-Hearing Br. at 9. The Court is unpersuaded. First, at the March 8 hearing, the Court rejected the Defendant’s proposed follow-up questions on Juror 50’s “healing process” because the Defendant had not proposed comparable questions during the voir dire process for other prospective jurors who indicated a personal history of sexual abuse on their questionnaires. Hearing Tr. at 28–29. Moreover, that an individual has undergone a “healing process” at some point in his life does not evidence that the experience interferes with his ability to be fair and impartial. Juror 50 credibly testified that his sexual abuse is not usually on his mind, that the subject matter would not upset him in a way that would distract him from his duty, and that he would not think about his own experience in a way that",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "36",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010359",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Owen",
      "Tanner",
      "Leung",
      "Baker",
      "Abcasis",
      "Juror 50",
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court",
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "E.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/01/22",
      "March 8"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 653",
      "Rule 606(b)",
      "Question 25",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010359"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal brief, discussing the case of United States v. Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}