mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00020949.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "6",
    "document_number": "653",
    "date": "04/01/22",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page123 of 221\nA-323\nCase 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 6 of 40\nother unwanted sexual advance, including by a stranger, acquaintance, supervisor, teacher, or family member.).\nId. at 25. Like Questions 25 and 48, there were three answer options in the following order:\n\"Yes (self),\" \"Yes (friend or family member),\" and \"No.\" The follow-up questions to Question 49 followed the same structure as the follow-up questions to Question 48. Question 49a asked:\n\"If yes, without listing names, please explain.\" Question 49b asked: \"If your answer to 49 was yes, do you believe that this would affect your ability to serve fairly and impartially as a juror in this case?\" and had checkboxes for \"Yes\" and \"No.\" Finally, Question 49c asked: \"If yes to 49b, please explain.\" Id. The Court developed Questions 48 and 49 in response to requests from both sides that the Court inquire into a prospective juror's experience with sexual abuse and assault. See Dkt. No. 367 at 21, 24. The Defendant also sought questions about experience with sexual harassment. See id. at 22. Rather than ask several separate questions, the Court adopted a compromise of two sufficiently broad questions so as not to unduly lengthen the questionnaire.\nDuring five sessions held over three days on November 4, 5, and 12, 2021, 694 prospective jurors completed the questionnaire. See Nov. 15, 2021 Tr. at 2, Dkt. No. 529.\nCounsel reviewed the completed questionnaires and jointly submitted four lists to the Court: (1) prospective jurors that both sides agreed should proceed to voir dire; (2) prospective jurors that both sides agreed should be excused or struck for cause; (3) prospective jurors that the Defendant but not the Government believed should be excused; and (4) prospective jurors that the Government but not the Defendant believed should be excused. Id. at 2–3. Because the parties agreed on a sufficient number of prospective jurors to proceed to voir dire, the Court did not resolve any disputes from lists 3 and 4, and those prospective jurors were excused by consent.\nId. at 2–5.\n6\nDOJ-OGR-00020949",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page123 of 221",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A-323",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 6 of 40",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "other unwanted sexual advance, including by a stranger, acquaintance, supervisor, teacher, or family member.).\nId. at 25. Like Questions 25 and 48, there were three answer options in the following order:\n\"Yes (self),\" \"Yes (friend or family member),\" and \"No.\" The follow-up questions to Question 49 followed the same structure as the follow-up questions to Question 48. Question 49a asked:\n\"If yes, without listing names, please explain.\" Question 49b asked: \"If your answer to 49 was yes, do you believe that this would affect your ability to serve fairly and impartially as a juror in this case?\" and had checkboxes for \"Yes\" and \"No.\" Finally, Question 49c asked: \"If yes to 49b, please explain.\" Id. The Court developed Questions 48 and 49 in response to requests from both sides that the Court inquire into a prospective juror's experience with sexual abuse and assault. See Dkt. No. 367 at 21, 24. The Defendant also sought questions about experience with sexual harassment. See id. at 22. Rather than ask several separate questions, the Court adopted a compromise of two sufficiently broad questions so as not to unduly lengthen the questionnaire.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "During five sessions held over three days on November 4, 5, and 12, 2021, 694 prospective jurors completed the questionnaire. See Nov. 15, 2021 Tr. at 2, Dkt. No. 529.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Counsel reviewed the completed questionnaires and jointly submitted four lists to the Court: (1) prospective jurors that both sides agreed should proceed to voir dire; (2) prospective jurors that both sides agreed should be excused or struck for cause; (3) prospective jurors that the Defendant but not the Government believed should be excused; and (4) prospective jurors that the Government but not the Defendant believed should be excused. Id. at 2–3. Because the parties agreed on a sufficient number of prospective jurors to proceed to voir dire, the Court did not resolve any disputes from lists 3 and 4, and those prospective jurors were excused by consent.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Id. at 2–5.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "6",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00020949",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/28/2023",
      "04/01/22",
      "November 4, 5, and 12, 2021",
      "Nov. 15, 2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 58",
      "3475901",
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 653",
      "Dkt. No. 367",
      "Dkt. No. 529",
      "DOJ-OGR-00020949"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}