mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00020866.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "610",
    "date": "02/24/2022",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page 40 of 221\nA-240\nCase 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 610 Filed 02/24/22 Page 2 of 3\n\nAccordingly, for the reasons fully explained in the Opinion & Order, a hearing is necessary to resolve the Defendant's motion. Because of the important interest in the finality of judgments, the standard for obtaining a post-verdict hearing is high. The Court concludes, and the Government concedes, that the demanding standard for holding a post-verdict evidentiary hearing is met as to whether Juror 50 failed to respond truthfully during the jury selection process to whether he was a victim of sexual abuse. Following trial, Juror 50 made several direct, unambiguous statements to multiple media outlets about his own experience that do not pertain to jury deliberations and that cast doubt on the accuracy of his responses during jury selection. Juror 50's post-trial statements are \"clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence that a specific, nonspeculative impropriety\"—namely, a false statement during jury selection—has occurred. United States v. Baker, 899 F.3d 123, 130 (2d Cir. 2018). To be clear, the potential impropriety is not that someone with a history of sexual abuse may have served on the jury. Rather, it is the potential failure to respond truthfully to questions during the jury selection process that asked for that material information so that any potential bias could be explored.\n\nIn contrast, the demanding standard for ordering an evidentiary hearing is not met as to the conduct of any other juror. The Court DENIES the request to conduct a hearing with respect to the other jurors. The Court also DENIES the Defendant's request for a broader hearing and pre-hearing discovery.\n\nThe Court therefore ORDERS that a hearing take place at which the Court will question Juror 50 under oath. The Court further ORDERS that Juror 50's questionnaire be unsealed, for the reasons explained in the Opinion & Order. The Court will email counsel for Juror 50 a copy of his questionnaire and a copy of this Order. As also explained in the Opinion & Order, the\n\n2\nDOJ-OGR-00020866",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page 40 of 221",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A-240",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 610 Filed 02/24/22 Page 2 of 3",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Accordingly, for the reasons fully explained in the Opinion & Order, a hearing is necessary to resolve the Defendant's motion. Because of the important interest in the finality of judgments, the standard for obtaining a post-verdict hearing is high. The Court concludes, and the Government concedes, that the demanding standard for holding a post-verdict evidentiary hearing is met as to whether Juror 50 failed to respond truthfully during the jury selection process to whether he was a victim of sexual abuse. Following trial, Juror 50 made several direct, unambiguous statements to multiple media outlets about his own experience that do not pertain to jury deliberations and that cast doubt on the accuracy of his responses during jury selection. Juror 50's post-trial statements are \"clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence that a specific, nonspeculative impropriety\"—namely, a false statement during jury selection—has occurred. United States v. Baker, 899 F.3d 123, 130 (2d Cir. 2018). To be clear, the potential impropriety is not that someone with a history of sexual abuse may have served on the jury. Rather, it is the potential failure to respond truthfully to questions during the jury selection process that asked for that material information so that any potential bias could be explored.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In contrast, the demanding standard for ordering an evidentiary hearing is not met as to the conduct of any other juror. The Court DENIES the request to conduct a hearing with respect to the other jurors. The Court also DENIES the Defendant's request for a broader hearing and pre-hearing discovery.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court therefore ORDERS that a hearing take place at which the Court will question Juror 50 under oath. The Court further ORDERS that Juror 50's questionnaire be unsealed, for the reasons explained in the Opinion & Order. The Court will email counsel for Juror 50 a copy of his questionnaire and a copy of this Order. As also explained in the Opinion & Order, the",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00020866",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Juror 50"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/24/2022",
      "02/28/2023"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 58",
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 610",
      "899 F.3d 123",
      "DOJ-OGR-00020866"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}