mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021071.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "24",
    "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, Page24 of 113\n\nAnd even if it were, the Government cannot apply the 2003 amendment to §3283 to offenses that the Government alleges were committed before the enactment of this provision. See Landgraf v. USI Film Prod., 511 U.S. 244 (1994). Rather, such offenses could only have been governed by the 1994 version of §3283, pursuant to which the statute of limitations expired once Defendant's accusers turned 25 and charged her in 2020. As to §1591, Landgraf precludes retroactive application of either §3283 or §3299.\n\n3. In a trial about child sexual abuse, a juror's material misstatements on a juror Questionnaire, which allowed him to conceal the fact that he was a victim of child sexual abuse, and his post-verdict public statements about the effect of that traumatic experience on his participation as a juror in this case, satisfied the two prong test under McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984), namely, that the juror failed to answer honestly material questions in voir dire and that correct responses would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause. Irrespective of whether the juror's false statements were intentional, which they clearly were, the similarities between the traumatic experiences described by the juror and the victims in the case, together with the juror's public statements, established the juror's bias. In addition, the court unfairly limited the scope of the hearing.\n\n9\nDOJ-OGR-00021071",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page24 of 113",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "And even if it were, the Government cannot apply the 2003 amendment to §3283 to offenses that the Government alleges were committed before the enactment of this provision. See Landgraf v. USI Film Prod., 511 U.S. 244 (1994). Rather, such offenses could only have been governed by the 1994 version of §3283, pursuant to which the statute of limitations expired once Defendant's accusers turned 25 and charged her in 2020. As to §1591, Landgraf precludes retroactive application of either §3283 or §3299.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3. In a trial about child sexual abuse, a juror's material misstatements on a juror Questionnaire, which allowed him to conceal the fact that he was a victim of child sexual abuse, and his post-verdict public statements about the effect of that traumatic experience on his participation as a juror in this case, satisfied the two prong test under McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984), namely, that the juror failed to answer honestly material questions in voir dire and that correct responses would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause. Irrespective of whether the juror's false statements were intentional, which they clearly were, the similarities between the traumatic experiences described by the juror and the victims in the case, together with the juror's public statements, established the juror's bias. In addition, the court unfairly limited the scope of the hearing.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "9",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021071",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/28/2023",
      "1994",
      "2020",
      "1984"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "22-1426",
      "59",
      "3475902",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021071"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document, likely a legal brief or memorandum, discussing legal precedents and a specific case involving child sexual abuse. The text references several legal cases and statutes, including Landgraf v. USI Film Prod. and McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood."
}