mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00020968.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "25",
    "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, Page142 of 221\nA-342\nCase 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 25 of 40\nhe had no doubt about his ability to be fair to both sides, and he had no reason to think otherwise.\nVoir Dire Tr. at 128, 130, 134.\nThe Court is unpersuaded by the Defendant's arguments to the contrary. The Defendant argues that Juror 50 was actually biased because his post-trial statements reveal that at the time of voir dire he regarded himself as a non-neutral advocate for the victims. Maxwell Post-Hearing Br. at 6.4 In particular, she relies on Juror 50's post-trial interviews, in which he \"proclaim[ed]\" that the guilty verdict was for \"for all the victims.\" Id. But these post-trial statements do not establish that Juror 50 was actually biased against the Defendant. The evidence at trial established that there was more than one victim of the Defendant's crimes, making Juror 50's post-trial statement reasonable. And, more importantly, Juror 50's view of the Defendant after the thirteen-day trial, during which he heard evidence that swayed him and eleven other jurors to convict the Defendant on five counts, does not shed light on any bias he allegedly harbored \"before he heard the evidence presented.\" Stewart, 317 F. Supp. 2d at 439-40 & n.4 (emphasis in original) (rejecting argument that juror's post-trial statements that the verdict was \"a victory for the little guy who loses money in the markets\" and that the defendant \"thought she was above everything\" revealed bias).\n2. Implied and Inferred Bias\nThe Defendant's central argument is that the Court should imply—based on Juror 50's personal history of sexual abuse, post-trial actions, and hearing testimony—that Juror 50 was biased against the Defendant. She similarly argues that the Court should infer Juror 50's bias against the Defendant.\n4 In her pre-hearing briefing, the Defendant reserved arguing that Juror 50 was actually biased in the event the Court held an evidentiary hearing. Maxwell Br. at 39. The Defendant does not expressly argue that Juror 50 was actually biased in her post-hearing briefing, but the Court understands this argument to raise an actual bias issue. See Maxwell Post-Hearing Br. at 2–3.\n25\nDOJ-OGR-00020968",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page142 of 221",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A-342",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 25 of 40",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "he had no doubt about his ability to be fair to both sides, and he had no reason to think otherwise.\nVoir Dire Tr. at 128, 130, 134.\nThe Court is unpersuaded by the Defendant's arguments to the contrary. The Defendant argues that Juror 50 was actually biased because his post-trial statements reveal that at the time of voir dire he regarded himself as a non-neutral advocate for the victims. Maxwell Post-Hearing Br. at 6.4 In particular, she relies on Juror 50's post-trial interviews, in which he \"proclaim[ed]\" that the guilty verdict was for \"for all the victims.\" Id. But these post-trial statements do not establish that Juror 50 was actually biased against the Defendant. The evidence at trial established that there was more than one victim of the Defendant's crimes, making Juror 50's post-trial statement reasonable. And, more importantly, Juror 50's view of the Defendant after the thirteen-day trial, during which he heard evidence that swayed him and eleven other jurors to convict the Defendant on five counts, does not shed light on any bias he allegedly harbored \"before he heard the evidence presented.\" Stewart, 317 F. Supp. 2d at 439-40 & n.4 (emphasis in original) (rejecting argument that juror's post-trial statements that the verdict was \"a victory for the little guy who loses money in the markets\" and that the defendant \"thought she was above everything\" revealed bias).\n2. Implied and Inferred Bias\nThe Defendant's central argument is that the Court should imply—based on Juror 50's personal history of sexual abuse, post-trial actions, and hearing testimony—that Juror 50 was biased against the Defendant. She similarly argues that the Court should infer Juror 50's bias against the Defendant.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4 In her pre-hearing briefing, the Defendant reserved arguing that Juror 50 was actually biased in the event the Court held an evidentiary hearing. Maxwell Br. at 39. The Defendant does not expressly argue that Juror 50 was actually biased in her post-hearing briefing, but the Court understands this argument to raise an actual bias issue. See Maxwell Post-Hearing Br. at 2–3.",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "25",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00020968",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Juror 50"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/28/2023",
      "04/01/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 58",
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 653",
      "317 F. Supp. 2d",
      "DOJ-OGR-00020968"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text discusses the issue of juror bias and the defendant's arguments regarding Juror 50's alleged bias. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}