mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008985.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "6",
    "document_number": "609",
    "date": "02/24/22",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 609 Filed 02/24/22 Page 6 of 13\nwhen questioned about his answers to the Jury Questionnaire; therefore Juror 50 has a compelling need to be able to separately confirm his recollection—regardless of whether or not there may exist a lapse in such recollection—and to be fully prepared to explain himself, as may be necessary, pursuant to an inquiry directed by the order of this Court. Juror 50 further desires to maintain his privacy and, to the extent possible, avoid having to disclose intimate details of his experience as the victim of prior sexual assault.\nIII. ARGUMENT\nFor the reasons set forth below, the Court should, in its proper exercise of discretion, allow Juror 50 to intervene in this action and grant release, under seal, of a copy of his Jury Questionnaire to his attorney, the Prosecution and Defense Counsel.\nThe relevant precedent from case law makes it abundantly clear that jurors have compelling and legitimate rights to privacy regarding “intensely personal subjects,” including prior sexual assaults. Juror 50’s right to privacy is clearly implicated by an inquiry by and before this Court, as the same relates directly and specifically claims concerning his experience(s) as a survivor of past sexual abuse and discussions he may have had with other jurors, in which he is alleged to have detailed his history as a victim of prior sexual assault. These factors are heightened by the intense media scrutiny surrounding the instant case and the already significant press coverage of Juror 50 himself, including the statements that he has made to the media about his jury service.\nJudge Nathan specifically invited Juror 50 to address the “appropriateness of an inquiry” into his conduct as a juror and affect that his personal history may have had on juror deliberations and the verdict rendered in this matter. Order at 1. Jan. 5, 2022. 20-CR-330.Therefore, by allowing Juror 50 to intervene in this action, this Court can ensure that Juror\n6\nDOJ-OGR-00008985",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 609 Filed 02/24/22 Page 6 of 13",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "when questioned about his answers to the Jury Questionnaire; therefore Juror 50 has a compelling need to be able to separately confirm his recollection—regardless of whether or not there may exist a lapse in such recollection—and to be fully prepared to explain himself, as may be necessary, pursuant to an inquiry directed by the order of this Court. Juror 50 further desires to maintain his privacy and, to the extent possible, avoid having to disclose intimate details of his experience as the victim of prior sexual assault.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "III. ARGUMENT",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "For the reasons set forth below, the Court should, in its proper exercise of discretion, allow Juror 50 to intervene in this action and grant release, under seal, of a copy of his Jury Questionnaire to his attorney, the Prosecution and Defense Counsel.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The relevant precedent from case law makes it abundantly clear that jurors have compelling and legitimate rights to privacy regarding “intensely personal subjects,” including prior sexual assaults. Juror 50’s right to privacy is clearly implicated by an inquiry by and before this Court, as the same relates directly and specifically claims concerning his experience(s) as a survivor of past sexual abuse and discussions he may have had with other jurors, in which he is alleged to have detailed his history as a victim of prior sexual assault. These factors are heightened by the intense media scrutiny surrounding the instant case and the already significant press coverage of Juror 50 himself, including the statements that he has made to the media about his jury service.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Judge Nathan specifically invited Juror 50 to address the “appropriateness of an inquiry” into his conduct as a juror and affect that his personal history may have had on juror deliberations and the verdict rendered in this matter. Order at 1. Jan. 5, 2022. 20-CR-330.Therefore, by allowing Juror 50 to intervene in this action, this Court can ensure that Juror",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "6",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008985",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Juror 50",
      "Judge Nathan"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Prosecution",
      "Defense Counsel",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/24/22",
      "Jan. 5, 2022"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 609",
      "20-CR-330",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008985"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, with a focus on Juror 50's privacy and potential inquiry into their conduct as a juror. The text is printed and legible, with no visible handwriting or stamps."
}