mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00020944.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "1",
    "document_number": "653",
    "date": "04/01/22",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": true
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page118 of 221\nA-318\nCase 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 1 of 40\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\nUnited States of America,\n-v-\nGhislaine Maxwell,\nDefendant.\nALISON J. NATHAN, Circuit Judge, sitting by designation:\nCentral to our system of justice is a defendant's right to have guilt adjudged by a lay jury of one's peers. Citizens give their time and attention to this critical role in the administration of justice, a role which is enshrined in our Constitution. Judicial officers are charged with the implementation of this constitutional right. In all cases, whether of high profile or low, trial courts must ensure that only jurors who can fairly and impartially assess the evidence are seated on the jury. And once seated, the jury must be permitted to deliberate fully and frankly in an effort to reach a unanimous verdict. Trials entail significant investments of public and private resources. McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 555 (1984). For all of these reasons, a verdict may be set aside only in the most extraordinary of circumstances.\nBefore the Court is the Defendant's motion for a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 on the basis that a juror provided inaccurate information during jury selection. Maxwell contends the juror's presence on the jury violated her Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. Bearing these principles in mind, the Court conducted an uncommon post-trial hearing. Although uncommon, the hearing was necessary because of incontrovertible evidence that Juror 50 failed to respond accurately during the jury selection process to a question on a written questionnaire about his history of sexual abuse. At the hearing, the Court\nDOJ-OGR-00020944",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page118 of 221",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A-318",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 1 of 40",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "stamp",
      "content": "USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 4/1/22",
      "position": "margin"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "United States of America,\n-v-\nGhislaine Maxwell,\nDefendant.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "ALISON J. NATHAN, Circuit Judge, sitting by designation:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Central to our system of justice is a defendant's right to have guilt adjudged by a lay jury of one's peers. Citizens give their time and attention to this critical role in the administration of justice, a role which is enshrined in our Constitution. Judicial officers are charged with the implementation of this constitutional right. In all cases, whether of high profile or low, trial courts must ensure that only jurors who can fairly and impartially assess the evidence are seated on the jury. And once seated, the jury must be permitted to deliberate fully and frankly in an effort to reach a unanimous verdict. Trials entail significant investments of public and private resources. McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 555 (1984). For all of these reasons, a verdict may be set aside only in the most extraordinary of circumstances.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Before the Court is the Defendant's motion for a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 on the basis that a juror provided inaccurate information during jury selection. Maxwell contends the juror's presence on the jury violated her Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. Bearing these principles in mind, the Court conducted an uncommon post-trial hearing. Although uncommon, the hearing was necessary because of incontrovertible evidence that Juror 50 failed to respond accurately during the jury selection process to a question on a written questionnaire about his history of sexual abuse. At the hearing, the Court",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00020944",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Juror 50"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States District Court",
      "United States of America"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/01/22",
      "02/28/2023"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 58",
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 653",
      "20-CR-330 (AJN)",
      "464 U.S. 548"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a stamp indicating electronic filing. The text is mostly printed, with a handwritten notation at the bottom. The document discusses a court case involving Ghislaine Maxwell and a motion for a new trial."
}