mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00020963.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "20",
    "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, Page137 of 221\nA-337\nCase 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 20 of 40\nyes friend or family, or no. Id. at 15, 21. Consistent with his explanation that he skimmed the questionnaire, he testified that he “did not pick up on” that pattern when filling out the questionnaire, id. at 15, and read only “the friend or family” and “missed that ‘have you,’ and then ‘yes self’ while reading,” Question 48, id. at 21. And when asked a follow-up question, Juror 50 said he was not “surprised” at the time, but only surprised “thinking now” that the questionnaire had asked about the sexual abuse history of friends and family but not about a juror’s own sexual abuse history. Id. at 21–22. The Court finds that Juror 50’s answers to each of these lines of questioning were reasonable and credible.\nThird, the Defendant argues that, as to Question 49, Juror 50 was inconsistent in first stating that he was sexually abused by “a family member, who is no longer part of the family,” but then stating that he “never considered [the stepbrother] part of [his] family even when they lived with us for a few years.” Maxwell Post-Hearing Br. at 9–10 (quoting Hearing Tr. at 8, 11). The Court acknowledges the tension between these two statements, but does not agree that tension suggests Juror 50 deliberately concealed his stepbrother’s abuse. Juror 50’s explanation of his answer to Question 49 proceeded in three stages. He clarified, first, that on November 4, he “didn’t even consider . . . at all” whether his stepbrother’s conduct was responsive to Question 49 as he “flew through” the questionnaire. Hearing Tr. at 11–12. At the hearing, he initially stated that “No” was an accurate answer because, as the Defendant notes, he “never considered” the stepbrother to be a member of his family. Id. And finally, when asked whether, “[a]s [he] sit[s] here now,” what his answer to Question 49 would be, Juror 50 said “it would have been yes” because “by law, by marriage, that person was [his] stepbrother.” Id. at 12–13. In short, it was only after Juror 50 was made to reflect on the question and its answer that he reached an\n20\nDOJ-OGR-00020963",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 58 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page137 of 221",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A-337",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 20 of 40",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "yes friend or family, or no. Id. at 15, 21. Consistent with his explanation that he skimmed the questionnaire, he testified that he “did not pick up on” that pattern when filling out the questionnaire, id. at 15, and read only “the friend or family” and “missed that ‘have you,’ and then ‘yes self’ while reading,” Question 48, id. at 21. And when asked a follow-up question, Juror 50 said he was not “surprised” at the time, but only surprised “thinking now” that the questionnaire had asked about the sexual abuse history of friends and family but not about a juror’s own sexual abuse history. Id. at 21–22. The Court finds that Juror 50’s answers to each of these lines of questioning were reasonable and credible.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Third, the Defendant argues that, as to Question 49, Juror 50 was inconsistent in first stating that he was sexually abused by “a family member, who is no longer part of the family,” but then stating that he “never considered [the stepbrother] part of [his] family even when they lived with us for a few years.” Maxwell Post-Hearing Br. at 9–10 (quoting Hearing Tr. at 8, 11). The Court acknowledges the tension between these two statements, but does not agree that tension suggests Juror 50 deliberately concealed his stepbrother’s abuse. Juror 50’s explanation of his answer to Question 49 proceeded in three stages. He clarified, first, that on November 4, he “didn’t even consider . . . at all” whether his stepbrother’s conduct was responsive to Question 49 as he “flew through” the questionnaire. Hearing Tr. at 11–12. At the hearing, he initially stated that “No” was an accurate answer because, as the Defendant notes, he “never considered” the stepbrother to be a member of his family. Id. And finally, when asked whether, “[a]s [he] sit[s] here now,” what his answer to Question 49 would be, Juror 50 said “it would have been yes” because “by law, by marriage, that person was [his] stepbrother.” Id. at 12–13. In short, it was only after Juror 50 was made to reflect on the question and its answer that he reached an",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "20",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00020963",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Juror 50"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/28/2023",
      "04/01/22",
      "November 4"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 58",
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 653",
      "A-337",
      "DOJ-OGR-00020963"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document, with a formal tone and language. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}