mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008913.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "5",
    "document_number": "596",
    "date": "02/11/22",
    "document_type": "Court Order",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 596 Filed 02/11/22 Page 5 of 7\n\nOrder, via email on or before February 16, 2022. Because this Order resolves the scope of redactions for all filings related to the motion, the Court adjourns sine die the briefing schedule previously set for the parties to justify any proposed sealing or redactions to the new trial motion papers. See Dkt. No. 585. The Court will rule on the proposed redactions so the filings can be docketed, and the Court will file under seal unredacted copies of any documents for which redactions are approved.\n\nAt the time the briefs are docketed with approved redactions, the Defendant is further ORDERED to docket Exhibits 2 and 3 to her motion and the exhibit to her reply, and the Government ORDERED to docket all exhibits to its opposition, all of which are publicly available documents.1\n\nII. Juror 50 Motion to Intervene\n\nThe Court is also in receipt of Juror 50's motion to intervene, which both the Government and the Defense oppose. Defense Motion, at 51-52; Government Response, at 44; see also Defense Ltr., Jan. 13, 2022. The Court denies the motion. Juror 50 cites no authority to support a juror's intervention when he will possibly be subject to a post-verdict inquiry. The cases he cites in support are inapposite; he is not seeking to intervene to assert First Amendment access by the press, to quash a subpoena, or to prevent dissemination of privileged information.\n\nAlthough cases do support that a juror should have legal counsel in a post-verdict inquiry into allegedly false voir dire responses, as Juror 50 does have, no cases support intervention. See, e.g., McCoy, No. 14 Cr. 6181 (EAW), Dkt. No. 329 at 6-7 (appointing counsel for juror alleged\n\n1 Exhibit 1 to the Defendant's motion, which is Juror 50's completed questionnaire, is to be maintained temporarily under seal pending the Court's ruling on whether a hearing will be held and on the New York Times Company's motion to unseal the filled-out questionnaires for the twelve seated jurors. Dkt. Nos. 583, 585. The Court will address Juror 50's request that a copy of his questionnaire be released to his counsel at that time. The Court notes that the voir dire transcript is currently available to the public.\n\n5\n\nDOJ-OGR-00008913",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 596 Filed 02/11/22 Page 5 of 7",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Order, via email on or before February 16, 2022. Because this Order resolves the scope of redactions for all filings related to the motion, the Court adjourns sine die the briefing schedule previously set for the parties to justify any proposed sealing or redactions to the new trial motion papers. See Dkt. No. 585. The Court will rule on the proposed redactions so the filings can be docketed, and the Court will file under seal unredacted copies of any documents for which redactions are approved.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "At the time the briefs are docketed with approved redactions, the Defendant is further ORDERED to docket Exhibits 2 and 3 to her motion and the exhibit to her reply, and the Government ORDERED to docket all exhibits to its opposition, all of which are publicly available documents.1",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "II. Juror 50 Motion to Intervene",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court is also in receipt of Juror 50's motion to intervene, which both the Government and the Defense oppose. Defense Motion, at 51-52; Government Response, at 44; see also Defense Ltr., Jan. 13, 2022. The Court denies the motion. Juror 50 cites no authority to support a juror's intervention when he will possibly be subject to a post-verdict inquiry. The cases he cites in support are inapposite; he is not seeking to intervene to assert First Amendment access by the press, to quash a subpoena, or to prevent dissemination of privileged information.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Although cases do support that a juror should have legal counsel in a post-verdict inquiry into allegedly false voir dire responses, as Juror 50 does have, no cases support intervention. See, e.g., McCoy, No. 14 Cr. 6181 (EAW), Dkt. No. 329 at 6-7 (appointing counsel for juror alleged",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 Exhibit 1 to the Defendant's motion, which is Juror 50's completed questionnaire, is to be maintained temporarily under seal pending the Court's ruling on whether a hearing will be held and on the New York Times Company's motion to unseal the filled-out questionnaires for the twelve seated jurors. Dkt. Nos. 583, 585. The Court will address Juror 50's request that a copy of his questionnaire be released to his counsel at that time. The Court notes that the voir dire transcript is currently available to the public.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "5",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008913",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Defense",
      "New York Times Company"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "February 16, 2022",
      "Jan. 13, 2022",
      "02/11/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 596",
      "Dkt. No. 585",
      "Dkt. No. 329",
      "Dkt. Nos. 583, 585",
      "No. 14 Cr. 6181 (EAW)"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court order related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}