mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00005252.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "document_number": "355",
    "date": "10/18/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 355 Filed 10/18/21 Page 3 of 5\nPage 3\ndefendant claims that because this case has received significant pretrial publicity and the charges involve a \"sensitive subject matter,\" the Court \"should grant a limited period of attorney-conducted voir dire after the Court's general voir dire,\" but she does not identify what information she believes that her attorneys would be more capable of discovering than the Court. (Dkt. No. 342 at 1, 10). Even if counsel identify specific or additional issues the defendant believes her attorneys should be able to explore in light of, as the defendant claims, the attorneys' \"more in-depth knowledge of the case\" (id. at 11), counsel are free to propose additional questions that the Court may ask, and the Court is in the best position to consider whether such inquiry is appropriate and, if so, how to pose such questions in a way that is fair to the interests of all parties and the potential jurors. Even if counsel attempt to ask their additional questions in an even-handed way, counsel may easily and inadvertently step over the line and significantly prejudice the other side. See Sainov, 2020 WL 958527, at *1 (holding that court-conducted voir dire \"assures that the parties do not stray into impermissible areas that could potentially taint the prospective jurors' answers or point of view [and] permits each party the opportunity to evaluate the questions proposed by their adversary\").\nThe defendant claims that \"questioning conducted exclusively by the Court further hampers the ability to uncover important information about jurors because it places jurors in a subordinate position heightening their reluctance to be candid.\" (Dkt. No. 342 at 13). The defendant's motion does not expand upon this conclusory assertion, but instead cites \"research\" that appears to broadly recommend in-depth voir dire. (Id. at 13-14). But there is no reason to\n1428 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) (rejecting defense request for attorney-conducted voir dire and noting that court-conducted voir dire has resulted in the \"empanelling of fair and impartial juries\"; \"And this has been true of cases that have attracted in advance of trial the widest publicity in the news media over extended periods of time.\")\nDOJ-OGR-00005252",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 355 Filed 10/18/21 Page 3 of 5",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Page 3",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "defendant claims that because this case has received significant pretrial publicity and the charges involve a \"sensitive subject matter,\" the Court \"should grant a limited period of attorney-conducted voir dire after the Court's general voir dire,\" but she does not identify what information she believes that her attorneys would be more capable of discovering than the Court. (Dkt. No. 342 at 1, 10). Even if counsel identify specific or additional issues the defendant believes her attorneys should be able to explore in light of, as the defendant claims, the attorneys' \"more in-depth knowledge of the case\" (id. at 11), counsel are free to propose additional questions that the Court may ask, and the Court is in the best position to consider whether such inquiry is appropriate and, if so, how to pose such questions in a way that is fair to the interests of all parties and the potential jurors. Even if counsel attempt to ask their additional questions in an even-handed way, counsel may easily and inadvertently step over the line and significantly prejudice the other side. See Sainov, 2020 WL 958527, at *1 (holding that court-conducted voir dire \"assures that the parties do not stray into impermissible areas that could potentially taint the prospective jurors' answers or point of view [and] permits each party the opportunity to evaluate the questions proposed by their adversary\").",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defendant claims that \"questioning conducted exclusively by the Court further hampers the ability to uncover important information about jurors because it places jurors in a subordinate position heightening their reluctance to be candid.\" (Dkt. No. 342 at 13). The defendant's motion does not expand upon this conclusory assertion, but instead cites \"research\" that appears to broadly recommend in-depth voir dire. (Id. at 13-14). But there is no reason to",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1428 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) (rejecting defense request for attorney-conducted voir dire and noting that court-conducted voir dire has resulted in the \"empanelling of fair and impartial juries\"; \"And this has been true of cases that have attracted in advance of trial the widest publicity in the news media over extended periods of time.\")",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005252",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "10/18/21",
      "1983"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "355",
      "342",
      "2020 WL 958527",
      "1428",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005252"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}