mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021534.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "10",
    "document_number": "620",
    "date": "02/25/22",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page104 of 217\nSA-358\n\nCase 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 10 of 21\n\n50's Instagram account, on which he also posted in January 2022, after the completion of the trial. Id. at 20. And fourth, the screenshots proffered match Juror 50's description of his social media accounts as containing only \"[p]ersonal stuff, like selfies.\" Id. The threshold for a hearing has not been met on this issue and the Court will not permit \"a fishing expedition\" into Juror 50's social media usage. Moon, 718 F.2d at 1234 (quoting United States v. Moten, 582 F.2d 654, 667 (2d Cir. 1978)).\n\nD. The Defendant has not justified an inquiry into other jurors\n\nThe Defendant seeks to examine not only Juror 50 at an evidentiary hearing but also the other eleven members of the jury in order to identify a second juror who, according to an article published by the New York Times, also was sexually abused as a minor. Maxwell Br. at 21, 49–50. The Defendant further argues that even if the article alone is insufficient to order a hearing as to the juror mentioned in the article, Juror 50's post-trial statements corroborate that another juror discussed sexual abuse during deliberations. Maxwell Reply at 24. As explained below, the evidence of this allegation is inadequate to meet the exacting standard for a hearing and the Court denies the Defendant's request to examine any jurors on this basis.5\n\n5 On December 31, 2021, the Court informed the parties by sealed order that a juror had contacted court staff about being approached by a reporter despite the fact that the juror had not identified themselves publicly and wished to remain anonymous. Because the contact by the member of the media had been uninvited by the juror, chambers staff notified all jurors via email on December 30, 2021, about the development. Subsequently, on January 5, 2022, a juror replied to the December 30 email sent by court staff. In that reply email, the juror wrote regarding news reports about the issue with Juror 50. The Court informed the parties of the juror communications by sealed order on January 6, 2022. The Defendant requested the communications, which the Court denied without prejudice. See Sealed Memo Endorsement, Jan. 13, 2022. The Defendant now renews her request on the theory that the communications could shed light on the identity of the second juror referred to by the New York Times. See Maxwell Br. at 21 n.10; Maxwell Reply at 23 n.12. Such a request is nothing but unfounded speculation. A juror's communication expressing fear about the media reports and the parties' responses to Juror 50's interviews are not relevant to the current inquiry. Nonetheless, in order to ensure a complete record, the Court will transmit under seal the concerned juror's communications to the parties with the name and contact information of the concerned juror redacted in order to protect the juror's privacy and prevent juror harassment. See Ianniello, 866 F.2d at 543. The Court also includes a subsequent communication with the same juror expressing additional concerns so that the parties have a complete record of non-logistical juror communications. The Court will file the unredacted communications under seal for preservation for the appellate record.\n\n10\n\nDOJ-OGR-00021534",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page104 of 217\nSA-358",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 10 of 21",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "50's Instagram account, on which he also posted in January 2022, after the completion of the trial. Id. at 20. And fourth, the screenshots proffered match Juror 50's description of his social media accounts as containing only \"[p]ersonal stuff, like selfies.\" Id. The threshold for a hearing has not been met on this issue and the Court will not permit \"a fishing expedition\" into Juror 50's social media usage. Moon, 718 F.2d at 1234 (quoting United States v. Moten, 582 F.2d 654, 667 (2d Cir. 1978)).",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "D. The Defendant has not justified an inquiry into other jurors",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Defendant seeks to examine not only Juror 50 at an evidentiary hearing but also the other eleven members of the jury in order to identify a second juror who, according to an article published by the New York Times, also was sexually abused as a minor. Maxwell Br. at 21, 49–50. The Defendant further argues that even if the article alone is insufficient to order a hearing as to the juror mentioned in the article, Juror 50's post-trial statements corroborate that another juror discussed sexual abuse during deliberations. Maxwell Reply at 24. As explained below, the evidence of this allegation is inadequate to meet the exacting standard for a hearing and the Court denies the Defendant's request to examine any jurors on this basis.5",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "5 On December 31, 2021, the Court informed the parties by sealed order that a juror had contacted court staff about being approached by a reporter despite the fact that the juror had not identified themselves publicly and wished to remain anonymous. Because the contact by the member of the media had been uninvited by the juror, chambers staff notified all jurors via email on December 30, 2021, about the development. Subsequently, on January 5, 2022, a juror replied to the December 30 email sent by court staff. In that reply email, the juror wrote regarding news reports about the issue with Juror 50. The Court informed the parties of the juror communications by sealed order on January 6, 2022. The Defendant requested the communications, which the Court denied without prejudice. See Sealed Memo Endorsement, Jan. 13, 2022. The Defendant now renews her request on the theory that the communications could shed light on the identity of the second juror referred to by the New York Times. See Maxwell Br. at 21 n.10; Maxwell Reply at 23 n.12. Such a request is nothing but unfounded speculation. A juror's communication expressing fear about the media reports and the parties' responses to Juror 50's interviews are not relevant to the current inquiry. Nonetheless, in order to ensure a complete record, the Court will transmit under seal the concerned juror's communications to the parties with the name and contact information of the concerned juror redacted in order to protect the juror's privacy and prevent juror harassment. See Ianniello, 866 F.2d at 543. The Court also includes a subsequent communication with the same juror expressing additional concerns so that the parties have a complete record of non-logistical juror communications. The Court will file the unredacted communications under seal for preservation for the appellate record.",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "10",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021534",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "New York Times"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "January 2022",
      "December 31, 2021",
      "December 30, 2021",
      "January 5, 2022",
      "January 6, 2022",
      "January 13, 2022",
      "02/25/22",
      "06/29/2023"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 78",
      "3536039",
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 620",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021534"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with a footnote section at the bottom of the page. There are no visible stamps or handwritten text. The document is well-formatted and easy to read."
}