mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010342.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "19",
    "document_number": "653",
    "date": "04/01/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 19 of 40\ntestimony as \"self-serving\" and \"rehearsed.\" Maxwell Post-Hearing Br. at 7, 10, Dkt. No. 649.\nJuror 50 certainly appeared prepared to answer the Court's questions, but that is consistent with what any good counsel would have recommended he do. It is unremarkable that Juror 50 would have reflected on his experience in anticipation of testifying under oath and was prepared for anticipated questions. The Court did not detect in Juror 50's responses any fabrication or improper rehearsal of a false narrative. Cf. Singh v. Barr, 823 F. App'x 10, 12 (2d Cir. 2020) (summary order) (declining to discount a witness's testimony as \"rehearsed\" where that witness did \"what any reasonable person . . . would do: namely, prepare for questioning at a potentially life-altering hearing\"). As for being \"self-serving,\" as noted above, Juror 50's personal interests were served by testifying truthfully at the hearing so as not to face criminal perjury charges.\nSecond, the Defendant argues that it is not credible that Juror 50 \"did not see the word 'you' and the answer 'Yes (self)'\" for Question 48. Maxwell Post-Hearing Br. at 8. She notes that he answered fifty-two prior questions and follow-up questions with the word \"you\" and that it is not plausible that Question 48 would ask only about friends and family. Yet the Court, in several lines of questioning, tested exactly this component of Juror 50's testimony and is satisfied by his answers. The Court first observed to Juror 50 that throughout the questionnaire, he \"appeared to have followed the instructions.\" Hearing Tr. at 19. When asked how he correctly followed the instructions elsewhere, Juror 50 explained, as he had previously in his testimony, that for questions appearing earlier in the questionnaire, he \"was still . . . in focus\" and so more able to respond accurately. Id. That focus waned, he explained, in reading later questions, including Question 48.\nAdditionally, the Court observed that many questions were structured like Question 48, asking jurors both about their personal experience and providing options to check for \"yes self,\n19\nDOJ-OGR-00010342",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 19 of 40",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "testimony as \"self-serving\" and \"rehearsed.\" Maxwell Post-Hearing Br. at 7, 10, Dkt. No. 649.\nJuror 50 certainly appeared prepared to answer the Court's questions, but that is consistent with what any good counsel would have recommended he do. It is unremarkable that Juror 50 would have reflected on his experience in anticipation of testifying under oath and was prepared for anticipated questions. The Court did not detect in Juror 50's responses any fabrication or improper rehearsal of a false narrative. Cf. Singh v. Barr, 823 F. App'x 10, 12 (2d Cir. 2020) (summary order) (declining to discount a witness's testimony as \"rehearsed\" where that witness did \"what any reasonable person . . . would do: namely, prepare for questioning at a potentially life-altering hearing\"). As for being \"self-serving,\" as noted above, Juror 50's personal interests were served by testifying truthfully at the hearing so as not to face criminal perjury charges.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Second, the Defendant argues that it is not credible that Juror 50 \"did not see the word 'you' and the answer 'Yes (self)'\" for Question 48. Maxwell Post-Hearing Br. at 8. She notes that he answered fifty-two prior questions and follow-up questions with the word \"you\" and that it is not plausible that Question 48 would ask only about friends and family. Yet the Court, in several lines of questioning, tested exactly this component of Juror 50's testimony and is satisfied by his answers. The Court first observed to Juror 50 that throughout the questionnaire, he \"appeared to have followed the instructions.\" Hearing Tr. at 19. When asked how he correctly followed the instructions elsewhere, Juror 50 explained, as he had previously in his testimony, that for questions appearing earlier in the questionnaire, he \"was still . . . in focus\" and so more able to respond accurately. Id. That focus waned, he explained, in reading later questions, including Question 48.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Additionally, the Court observed that many questions were structured like Question 48, asking jurors both about their personal experience and providing options to check for \"yes self,",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "19",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010342",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Juror 50",
      "Singh",
      "Barr"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/01/22",
      "2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "653",
      "649",
      "48",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010342"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document related to a case involving Juror 50. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and easy to read."
}