mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021050.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "document_number": "59",
    "date": "02/28/2023",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page3 of 113\nD. All counts fall within the scope of the NPA and must be dismissed ............................................................................................................................40\nPOINT II\nALL COUNTS ARE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS............................................................................................................................41\nA. Section 3283 Does Not Apply to the Mann Act Violations (Counts Three and Four)............................................................................................................................43\nB. The District Court erred in applying § 3283 retroactively ............................................................................................................................52\n1. Congress evinced an intent that § 3283 operate only prospectively............................................................................................................................54\n2. The District Court's application of § 3283 creates \"impermissible retroactive effects\" without authorization from Congress ............................................................................................................................58\nC. Count Six is also barred by the Statute of Limitations ............................................................................................................................62\nPOINT III\nDEFENDANT WAS DENIED HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JURY BECAUSE A JUROR MADE FALSE STATEMENTS IN VOIR DIRE AS TO MATERIAL FACTS THAT, IF KNOWN, WOULD HAVE PROVIDED A VALID BASIS TO REMOVE HIM FOR CAUSE. U.S. Const. amend. VI............................................................................................................................63\nA. Introduction............................................................................................................................63\nB. Applicable Law ............................................................................................................................64\nC. Juror No. 50's False Responses Deprived Ms. Maxwell of her Constitutional Right to a Trial by an Impartial Jury ............................................................................................................................65\n1. Juror 50 Did Not Truthfully Answer Material Questions During Voir Dire ............................................................................................................................65\nD. Under the McDonough Test, Juror 50's Actual, Implied and Inferred Bias was established............................................................................................................................66\n1. The McDonough Test: The First Prong............................................................................................................................66\nii\nDOJ-OGR-00021050",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page3 of 113",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "D. All counts fall within the scope of the NPA and must be dismissed ............................................................................................................................40\nPOINT II\nALL COUNTS ARE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS............................................................................................................................41\nA. Section 3283 Does Not Apply to the Mann Act Violations (Counts Three and Four)............................................................................................................................43\nB. The District Court erred in applying § 3283 retroactively ............................................................................................................................52\n1. Congress evinced an intent that § 3283 operate only prospectively............................................................................................................................54\n2. The District Court's application of § 3283 creates \"impermissible retroactive effects\" without authorization from Congress ............................................................................................................................58\nC. Count Six is also barred by the Statute of Limitations ............................................................................................................................62\nPOINT III\nDEFENDANT WAS DENIED HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JURY BECAUSE A JUROR MADE FALSE STATEMENTS IN VOIR DIRE AS TO MATERIAL FACTS THAT, IF KNOWN, WOULD HAVE PROVIDED A VALID BASIS TO REMOVE HIM FOR CAUSE. U.S. Const. amend. VI............................................................................................................................63\nA. Introduction............................................................................................................................63\nB. Applicable Law ............................................................................................................................64\nC. Juror No. 50's False Responses Deprived Ms. Maxwell of her Constitutional Right to a Trial by an Impartial Jury ............................................................................................................................65\n1. Juror 50 Did Not Truthfully Answer Material Questions During Voir Dire ............................................................................................................................65\nD. Under the McDonough Test, Juror 50's Actual, Implied and Inferred Bias was established............................................................................................................................66\n1. The McDonough Test: The First Prong............................................................................................................................66",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "ii",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021050",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Juror 50"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Congress",
      "District Court",
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/28/2023"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "22-1426",
      "59",
      "3475902",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021050"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a case involving Ms. Maxwell. The content is a legal argument with references to specific laws and court decisions. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}