mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021749.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "7",
    "document_number": "87",
    "date": "07/27/2023",
    "document_type": "Preliminary Statement in Reply",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 87, 07/27/2023, 3548202, Page7 of 35\n\nPRELIMINARY STATEMENT IN REPLY\n\nMs. Maxwell relies on her arguments in her principal Appellant's Brief, Points II and IV, and supplements her arguments in Points I, III, and V herein.\n\nMs. Maxwell argues that she is a third-party beneficiary of the non-prosecution agreement (hereinafter, \"NPA\") and, as such, has standing to enforce the co-conspirator immunity provision which, by its terms, barred this prosecution. Alternatively, the District Court's reliance on U.S. v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985) to resolve perceived ambiguities was an error and the District Court should have ordered a hearing.\n\nMs. Maxwell further argues that the District Court's findings and conclusions concerning Juror 50 were an abuse of discretion in three respects: (1) Juror 50's explanations for his false answers to a juror questionnaire were incredible on their face; (2) Juror 50's concealed traumatic experience as a victim of childhood sexual abuse under circumstances analogous to the experiences of the Government witnesses, if known during voir dire, would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause; and (3) the Court abandoned its obligation to ascertain not merely the juror's credibility, but also the validity of a challenge for cause, when it unduly narrowed the scope of its examination of Juror 50 at the post-trial hearing.\n\n1\n\nDOJ-OGR-00021749",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 87, 07/27/2023, 3548202, Page7 of 35",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "PRELIMINARY STATEMENT IN REPLY",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Ms. Maxwell relies on her arguments in her principal Appellant's Brief, Points II and IV, and supplements her arguments in Points I, III, and V herein.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Ms. Maxwell argues that she is a third-party beneficiary of the non-prosecution agreement (hereinafter, \"NPA\") and, as such, has standing to enforce the co-conspirator immunity provision which, by its terms, barred this prosecution. Alternatively, the District Court's reliance on U.S. v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985) to resolve perceived ambiguities was an error and the District Court should have ordered a hearing.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Ms. Maxwell further argues that the District Court's findings and conclusions concerning Juror 50 were an abuse of discretion in three respects: (1) Juror 50's explanations for his false answers to a juror questionnaire were incredible on their face; (2) Juror 50's concealed traumatic experience as a victim of childhood sexual abuse under circumstances analogous to the experiences of the Government witnesses, if known during voir dire, would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause; and (3) the Court abandoned its obligation to ascertain not merely the juror's credibility, but also the validity of a challenge for cause, when it unduly narrowed the scope of its examination of Juror 50 at the post-trial hearing.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021749",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Juror 50"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "07/27/2023",
      "1985"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 87",
      "3548202",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021749"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing, specifically a preliminary statement in reply. The text is well-formatted and clear. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}