mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00020962.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "19",
    "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, Page136 of 221\nA-336\nCase 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 19 of 40\ntestimony as \"self-serving\" and \"rehearsed.\" Maxwell Post-Hearing Br. at 7, 10, Dkt. No. 649.\nJuror 50 certainly appeared prepared to answer the Court's questions, but that is consistent with\nwhat any good counsel would have recommended he do. It is unremarkable that Juror 50 would\nhave reflected on his experience in anticipation of testifying under oath and was prepared for\nanticipated questions. The Court did not detect in Juror 50's responses any fabrication or\nimproper rehearsal of a false narrative. Cf. Singh v. Barr, 823 F. App'x 10, 12 (2d Cir. 2020)\n(summary order) (declining to discount a witness's testimony as \"rehearsed\" where that witness\ndid \"what any reasonable person . . . would do: namely, prepare for questioning at a potentially\nlife-altering hearing\"). As for being \"self-serving,\" as noted above, Juror 50's personal interests\nwere served by testifying truthfully at the hearing so as not to face criminal perjury charges.\nSecond, the Defendant argues that it is not credible that Juror 50 \"did not see the word 'you'\nand the answer 'Yes (self)'\" for Question 48. Maxwell Post-Hearing Br. at 8. She notes that he\nanswered fifty-two prior questions and follow-up questions with the word \"you\" and that it is not\nplausible that Question 48 would ask only about friends and family. Yet the Court, in several lines\nof questioning, tested exactly this component of Juror 50's testimony and is satisfied by his\nanswers. The Court first observed to Juror 50 that throughout the questionnaire, he \"appeared to\nhave followed the instructions.\" Hearing Tr. at 19. When asked how he correctly followed the\ninstructions elsewhere, Juror 50 explained, as he had previously in his testimony, that for\nquestions appearing earlier in the questionnaire, he \"was still . . . in focus\" and so more able to\nrespond accurately. Id. That focus waned, he explained, in reading later questions, including\nQuestion 48.\nAdditionally, the Court observed that many questions were structured like Question 48, asking\njurors both about their personal experience and providing options to check for \"yes self,\n19\nDOJ-OGR-00020962",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 58 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page136 of 221\nA-336",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 19 of 40",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "testimony as \"self-serving\" and \"rehearsed.\" Maxwell Post-Hearing Br. at 7, 10, Dkt. No. 649.\nJuror 50 certainly appeared prepared to answer the Court's questions, but that is consistent with\nwhat any good counsel would have recommended he do. It is unremarkable that Juror 50 would\nhave reflected on his experience in anticipation of testifying under oath and was prepared for\nanticipated questions. The Court did not detect in Juror 50's responses any fabrication or\nimproper rehearsal of a false narrative. Cf. Singh v. Barr, 823 F. App'x 10, 12 (2d Cir. 2020)\n(summary order) (declining to discount a witness's testimony as \"rehearsed\" where that witness\ndid \"what any reasonable person . . . would do: namely, prepare for questioning at a potentially\nlife-altering hearing\"). As for being \"self-serving,\" as noted above, Juror 50's personal interests\nwere served by testifying truthfully at the hearing so as not to face criminal perjury charges.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Second, the Defendant argues that it is not credible that Juror 50 \"did not see the word 'you'\nand the answer 'Yes (self)'\" for Question 48. Maxwell Post-Hearing Br. at 8. She notes that he\nanswered fifty-two prior questions and follow-up questions with the word \"you\" and that it is not\nplausible that Question 48 would ask only about friends and family. Yet the Court, in several lines\nof questioning, tested exactly this component of Juror 50's testimony and is satisfied by his\nanswers. The Court first observed to Juror 50 that throughout the questionnaire, he \"appeared to\nhave followed the instructions.\" Hearing Tr. at 19. When asked how he correctly followed the\ninstructions elsewhere, Juror 50 explained, as he had previously in his testimony, that for\nquestions appearing earlier in the questionnaire, he \"was still . . . in focus\" and so more able to\nrespond accurately. Id. That focus waned, he explained, in reading later questions, including\nQuestion 48.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Additionally, the Court observed that many questions were structured like Question 48, asking\njurors both about their personal experience and providing options to check for \"yes self,",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "19",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00020962",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Juror 50",
      "Singh",
      "Barr"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/01/22",
      "02/28/2023"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 58",
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 653",
      "Dkt. No. 649",
      "823 F. App'x 10",
      "Question 48",
      "DOJ-OGR-00020962"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}